Cost of Charasteristics

Have any of you experienced any problems with high costs of charasteristics? Some of the cost is extremely costly for different careers- is this a problem in your view?

How have you changed it?

LordofEndTimes wrote:Have any of you experienced any problems with high costs of charasteristics? Some of the cost is extremely costly for different careers- is this a problem in your view?

Some of my players complained about it initially, but when I sat down and explained my view of it to them, they all agreed it made sense... essentially, buying +10 fellowship should be worth far more than buying +10 in Charm or Inquiry, because an increase to the ability score influences all the skills that're based on it, and a variety of other things besides (such as the number of people you can affect with some Fellowship-based skills, which is linked to your FB).

But, at the same time, between circumstance modifiers, skills, talents, equipment, etc. a character can survive reasonably well with an ability score in the mid-30s, so increasing ability scores isn't essential... but it's a useful option to make your character broadly 'better' at something rather than better at only a few specific things.

It comes down to personal choice... buying up your ability scores makes you broadly better, but its costly for all that utility, especially as higher scores often open up access to talents you couldn't buy before. Buying up skills and talents is cheaper, but doesn't provide as much impact overall.

Thats exactly the argument isnt it, a stat influences all the skills that run off it, the skill modifier affects just that skill

The only thing I might consider is not counting stat advances for level progression - but thats more to make the skill progression slightly slower

Code13 wrote:Thats exactly the argument isnt it, a stat influences all the skills that run off it, the skill modifier affects just that skill

The only thing I might consider is not counting stat advances for level progression - but thats more to make the skill progression slightly slower

That would grossly penalise anyone who bougt statistical advance though. Imagine if you wanted to increase something by +10 and spent 100 for the Simple Advance and then 250 for the next one that's almost 400 XP early on that's almost the diffrence between ranks, especially if done at creation. Its even more penalising if you consider how many people may buy sevral Simple Advances early on at 100 a piece to level out bad rolls or hedge bets as it were. Discounting background packages makes sense, as the player usally still comes out ahead for the trade, but discounting statistical advances would be far too prohibitive.

I feel that characterisitic advances ae too expensive, and I've adjusted them as follows:

New Costs (Guardsman examples)
Fast Progression --- 100/200/300/400 (WS, BS, S)
Average Progression --- 200/400/600/800 (T, Ag, Per)
Slow Progression --- 300/600/900/1,200 (Int, WP, Fel)

Perhaps, my payoff though would be to put the advancements back up to 10 per rather than the 5 per they are at the moment (which really makes no sense to me since the best someone could hope to get in a stat is 60 now, why???)

I think they did that to focus on Skills and Talents and combat options over stats. There are so many ridiculous means of easily getting bonuses to actions (read: combat) -- although I think this unfairly caters to combat over investagative play.

Cypher wrote:I think they did that to focus on Skills and Talents and combat options over stats. There are so many ridiculous means of easily getting bonuses to actions (read: combat) -- although I think this unfairly caters to combat over investagative play.

Yeah I think it almost over favours combat monkeys over investigators - 84 million skills for stabbing and shooting people, only one for tech-use...but then there is the danger of too many skills for one person to be good at their job.

Which is kinda why I like the idea (at least) of not counting stats for rank advancements, it means on average, people will have more skills (and better stats in some cases) that at the moment.

This xp cost do on the whole seem quite low, now granted we haven't got very far in our game, no xp has been given yet, but all this 100-200xp for some pretty serious talents seems pretty low considering you're supposed to get 200xp per session. Thoughts from someone with more experience (hah!) on the matter?

Also: I'm using a different chargen and advancement system, don't want any xp cost I've made up to totally bork the game.

Pesonally speaking I like to run at one decent length campaign before I start twraking things like this, just so there is a clearer indication of how character progress

Well, that would be the sensible way of doing it. But I'm impatient.
Also, I would have buckley's of selling my players such a linear advancement system.
They'd be all like 'WTF is this? D&D?, back to Exlalted we go! tra la la!"

LordofEndTimes wrote:Have any of you experienced any problems with high costs of charasteristics? Some of the cost is extremely costly for different careers- is this a problem in your view?

How have you changed it?

My two bits: First, to follow the thread discussion, keeping the stats (somewhat) low, forces players to look for advantages (i.e.: taking cover, manouvering to get a better shot, ganging up on an opponent) if you maximize your advantages, your 60% in WS is suddenly adjusted to 90% (max +30% right?). Not too shabby! Taken from a skills standpoint, if you have a max 60 stat, plus the additional skill buff, you arrive at 80%, plus or minus circumstance bonuses, could send it to nearly 100%. Understandably very few people have that precious maxed out stat, but the stat you favor the greatest is most likely "near" that mark.

Next, I had to read the OP post twice to really see what was being asked. I might still be wrong, but I think the post has more to do with the differing costs by profession (I.E. Advancing Willpower is not as expensive for a Psyker as it is for, say, an Assassin), and this is to illustrate the focus of different professions. As an Arbitrator, it's important for me to have a fairly good Fellowship (gotta get that confession! And lead the Investigation/ Interrogation!), but Intelligence (sadly

) can fall a bit by the wayside...

What FFG/ BL is saying here is that you will not have the ubermensch character without sacrificing a LOT of XP.

Or I could be way off in my reading/ comprehension skills

Dumbass players I cant help you with

You could try a system I used in a game (Amber DRPG fwiw) where the players dont know how much anything costs, they just give me an advancement list and when they have paid it off with XP they get the skill or stat - usually with about 4 things on the list in order of preference, reflecting what the character is developing or trying to learn.

Code13 wrote:(which really makes no sense to me since the best someone could hope to get in a stat is 60 now, why???)

Two reasons spring to mind:

The first is to keep positive modifiers still relevant at higher 'levels' - if you've got a 90% base chance of success, then bonuses... and thus acts and choices that confer bonuses... become less useful. A character with Ag 90 doesn't need Dodge +20, because by the time he's got Dodge +10, he's already automatically avoiding 1 attack a turn. Further, it means there's always some chance of failure on the standard test (which is a challenging action... the most routine tasks succeed automatically anyway).

The second is a matter of scaling... there are things out there that're stronger, tougher, smarter, quicker, etc than humans... the higher you raise the upper limit for a human being, the higher the lower limit for 'inhuman' becomes.

Yeah I think it almost over favours combat monkeys over investigators - 84 million skills for stabbing and shooting people, only one for tech-use...but then there is the danger of too many skills for one person to be good at their job.

Skills? Sure, there's only one tech-use skill (although several other skills relate to it), but there aren't actually any combat-only skills except Dodge. As it stands, there are plenty of skills useful to investigators and more socially-inclined characters.

Talents are another matter - the majority do focus on combat (although those that don't tend to be broader in effect - Talented can be applied to any skill in the game, while Peer and Good Reputation grant flat bonuses to Fel tests against the chosen group... quite a potent effect). But then... combat is one of those sections that requires mechanics, while a lot of the detail in investigative and interaction situations can be (and should be) roleplayed, with skill tests, etc, used to support it.

I don't think the system favours combat characters... certainly, while they have lots of access to relevant talents, all the best ones require (sometimes extensive) characteristic advances (the most powerful combat talents require WS, BS, Str or Ag of 40, 45 or 50), and there's no way for a character to get flat bonuses on his attack rolls beyond the circumstantial bonuses in combat, which aren't always guaranteed... while a character who focusses on investigation doesn't necessarily need to increase his Fel or Int scores, as skill mastery and a couple of choice talents can make him really quite good at his chosen tasks... the characteristic increases are extra.

My players haven't complained at all about the high cost of Characteristics.

I don't think the system favors combat at all, in fact it seems to cost more experience to be a gunslinger than it does to be tech savvy. With combat there's a ton of talents and skills you might need, combined with the high cost of stats (which I personally think works fine). The cost of being a combat monster becomes quite high.

The tech type skills definitely seem to have a less is more feel where after a few skill purchases the character is able to function in a wide variety of situations. The combat monster's purchases only really serve him well in one situation (killing stuff).

While the rules do seem to have more to say about fighting than mental or social activities, isn't it combat that frequently stirs up the most arguments in a group if anything does? So it's always a good idea to have rules that are fairly thorough when it comes to combat, and fairly open and flexible for other things that don't provoke such possibly heated discussions.

The second is a matter of scaling... there are things out there that're stronger, tougher, smarter, quicker, etc than humans... the higher you raise the upper limit for a human being, the higher the lower limit for 'inhuman' becomes.

This is exactly what I was thinking. No matter how far you advance your rank, you are still just a human. Not an Astartes, or an Ork, or an Eldar. You have reached maximum human potential.

Plus, if you had a cap of 100, how boring is it to hit all the time, miss all the time, etc.

Code13 wrote:Thats exactly the argument isnt it, a stat influences all the skills that run off it, the skill modifier affects just that skill

The only thing I might consider is not counting stat advances for level progression - but thats more to make the skill progression slightly slower

These are my house rules which we have been using for a while

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffgforums/posts/list/5050.page#101176

As you can see one of them is to not include stat XP in rank increases. The result has been exactly what we wanted rather than the problems people thought of it when it was mentioned (Cypher alluded to this in his post). While this may not work for everyone it works fine for our group, our Psyker is happy filling out his stats (I think he is avoiding going up levels because he is scared of the power he will gain) and has proven to have a very good general base. The Arbiter is following the middle ground and mixing stats and skills and is doing fine and the Moriat Assassin is going for every skill he can get. Yes the Moriat is higher rank but it has not had any effect on the game but I may point out that we do not really compare abilities we just play our characters.

It has meant that players are putting stats up they simply would not have done before allowing quirky choices. It means that most characters are increasing ranks slower and rank increase does not feel rushed, it means nearly all characters are competent in the skills at their rank rather than a whole rank going on a couple of stat increases.

Yes we have a powerful Assassin but he was going to be powerful anyway, yes the system could be abused but we have found it has worked a treat. And the person most happy with the whole system change is the Psyker who is filling out his stats.

Without this we would all be the same rank, the Assassin would have the same skills, the Psyker would be dead (toughness would not have been increased twice and wounds bought) and the arbiter would be far less rounded in skills.

I had no problems at all with the cost of characteristic advancements for my Sister of Battle.
With my assassin, however, it's a lot different. Whilst I think the cost for Strength is reasonable (even though this stat is important for melee, assassins should rely more on swiftness than brute strength), the cost of Fellowship just seems excessively high to me.

Initially I wanted to go the Assassin-at-Marque path and develop the character into some sort of infiltrator/manipulator, with assassination of the target as the final step after gaining it's trust.
However, just how am I supposed to buy enough Fellowship when the very first advance already costs 500XP?
Additionally, I am missing "Charm+20". Granted, I get "Talented (Charm)", but actually what's the point in having this? That's just like "Charm+20" with a different name.

Considering that the assassin is supposed to have a "social/infiltrator" path as alternative to the "killing machine" one, the necessary abilities to actually go this way are much too hard to acquire, imho.

My group uses a 100xp/hr set with generally little to no combat experience. Seems to work out pretty well, as you can kinna gauge where/when you'll be looking at various improvements, level caps, etc.

200/session? I'd prolly have to slit my wrists at that rate.

Whilst I think the cost for Strength is reasonable (even though this stat is important for melee, assassins should rely more on swiftness than brute strength), the cost of Fellowship just seems excessively high to me.

Why should assassins rely more on swiftness than brute force? It's a preference you and many others may have, but not every character should be built the same way. It might be better if the player selected which characteristics progressed at which rates, showing the chosen development for that character rather than just a 'class-like' lump set.

Actually, that's a rather nice idea. Although it does open up a window for munchkinism.
How about the idea of a compromise? 2-3 different sets of advancement costs, each one balanced, but different from one another.

Hot Hands wrote:Why should assassins rely more on swiftness than brute force? It's a preference you and many others may have, but not every character should be built the same way. It might be better if the player selected which characteristics progressed at which rates, showing the chosen development for that character rather than just a 'class-like' lump set.

I've actually been toying with this very idea, though not a completely open customization of stat advancement rates. I'm thinking set one "defining" stat each for Fast, Medium, and Slow progression, and then allow customization from there. The only problem then is twinks and munchkins abusing that system. If I bother to develop the idea further, I'll post if it proves to have some merit in testing. Not likely to though, I hate modifying core rules in games most of the time.

-=Brother Praetus=-
"No, bring your blade up to parry, then across. Try again. No, that's totally wrong! Ten lashes for getting blood on my uniform. Medic!"

If I bother to develop the idea further, I'll post if it proves to have some merit in testing.

I posted something similar a month or two ago, but it dropped off of the pages fast.

Lynata wrote:
Additionally, I am missing "Charm+20". Granted, I get "Talented (Charm)", but actually what's the point in having this? That's just like "Charm+20" with a different name.

I have been scratching my head over this very issue.

Yes, same thing for the Adept investing into Medicae... Master Chirurgion but no Medicae +20, in fact, only Psykers seem to get that.

To the main topic, I've been using the house rule of allowing players to switch around the stat progression rate based on their concept, as long as it's justified. For example, I want to play a smooth assassin, so I switch Weapon Skill with Fellowship.

I don't see much of an issue with muchkins, as the careers already have their stats optimised to what they do, and this opens more venues of character specialization.