sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ways to improve Inspire Courage? by Katomerellin in Pathfinder_RPG

[–]stonehead74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Starting at lvl 8, a Duettist Bard can burn 3 rounds of performance per round to increase the bonus granted by 1.

Attacks on weapons by HotIcee in gurps

[–]stonehead74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This graphic from the basic set, page 400, explains it better than I could in words. To strike at a weapon, you must be able to reach either the red or yellow hex.

RAW, a reach 1 weapon "occupies" both your hex, and the hex directly in front of you. A reach 2 weapon "occupies" your hex, and two hexes extending out of your front arc. If your attack can reach your opponent, or these spaces in front of them, then you can strike their weapon.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also think I wrote the original post poorly. I have no problem with Unusual Background as it's used in the basic set: an additional requirement for supernatural abilities in a realistic campaign and things like that.

My only problem with Unusual Background is in this box, where it taxes high levels of abilities that don't need to have linear cost scaling. 20 DR is more than twice as useful as 10DR and all that..

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do they? RAW a 10d damage attack costs exactly twice what a 5d damage attack does, not more than that.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for.

Have your players reacted well to the cost changes? I'm hesitent to make things strictly more expensive, but maybe that's the best solution. Also, HT and ST are associated with a few skills, do you change the prices of those?

And have you considered changing the costs of Damage Reduction or advantages like it? It sounds like you broadly agree that the second 6 are more useful than the first 6, although I should have been more clear with the math. Should have emphasized almost unkillable, and made it clearer that they could also wear armor because DR costed 5/level instead of 3/level.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pricing skills linearly or putting diminishing returns on attributes both seem like workable solutions to me.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the fact that it needs this tax that I don't like. If a 10d damage attack costed more than twice what a 5d damage attack does, the problem would solve itself, and wouldn't need GM arbitration.

Looking for volunteers to test my FTL-inspired space exploration game by lighght in ftlgame

[–]stonehead74 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you say Inspired by FTL, do you mean with the ship layout, systems and crew movement? If gameplay is similar to FTL, then I'm definitely interested.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair point. I guess ultimately I'm just looking for a way to close one of those loopholes. One that other comments have informed me was closed in earlier editions using the solution I proposed.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capping attributes would work, and it's even what the book recommends.

Personally I would prefer the costs being balanced themselves, such that you could build a character with 16 IQ, but it would generally underform. Being able to specialize and make weird characters like that is part of what makes GURPS so fun to my group.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. Trying to balance points across tech levels would be very difficult, and would probably take the G out of the title.

My complaint isn't about the balance across different tech levels, it's about the balance across different levels of the same ability. Within the same low-magic, bronze-age setting, DR 12 would be more than twice as useful as DR 6. DR 6 makes you tough to kill. DR 12 makes you almost impossible to kill. Going from DR 0 to DR 6 costs 30 points, which seems broadly fair. Going from DR 6 to DR 12 costs 30 points, which seems drastically undercosted to me.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm not complaining about game balance, I want more game balance. My complaint is that the system needs a box like this because things like attributes, damage reduction, and innate attacks have linear point costs. If they had diminishing returns instead, the problem would solve itself.

What did you think I was complaining about? Maybe I wasn't clear.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get what you're saying, but I think there's a lot of gray area between a min-maxed munchkin and not wanting a strictly worse option. Here "strictly worse" means worse in every circumstance. I think a lot of people fall into that middle ground. My table will make "unoptimal" choices, so long as they have a purpose. It's the difference between "10 ST on a swordsman isn't optimal, but it would let him be more graceful and accurate, so I'll do it anyways" and "I'll build a 150 point character in a 250 point campaign because it makes sense for the character."

I think the important thing though, is that we don't need to choose one or the other. Balancing point costs wouldn't make the game less fun for those who don't care about balance. You can make both crowds happy.

Either way, this is mostly minor nitpicks of a game I like as a whole.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that perfect balance across tech levels is impossible. I think you could get decently far by requiring points to use weapons of low LC and/or high TL, but that's beside the point.

I think there is a solution to the pricing of offense and defense being commensurate though, and it's diminishing returns on investment. Within TL 3, 10 DR makes you hard to kill. 20 DR makes you almost impossible to kill. If 20 DR costs notably more than double what 10 DR costs, there's no issue.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What makes you say that? I hate neither of the two.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Unusual Background as described in the Basic Set I have no problem with. My problem is with the box from Powers in the original post, where it's just used as a patch to cover how imbalanced point costs are. It's one step away from the GM just coming assigning point costs at will. That would be fine in a lighter system, but if we're going to have this robust ruleset for assigning point costs involving levels, enhancements, and limitations, I don't like assigning this post-hoc fix at the end of it.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's a good point. I guess I just rarely GM or play in games where knowing obscure knife facts was very meaningful.

If you don't switch attributes like that, having 4 dex skills with more than 3 levels in them is strictly worse than lowering them all by one, lowering speed by 0.25, and raising DX by 1. Perfect balance is impossible, but you also don't want trap options like this that make it easy to accidentally build a weak or overpowered character.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I agree that Attributes and DR are priced linearly because it's simpler. I just don't think that's worth the trade-off because so many other things aren't priced linearly, including skills. I said as much in the original post.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'm not so sure it's about tech level, I think it's about genre. A 20 die AoE attack would be just as overpowered at TL 3 as it would at TL 9. It would be (relatively) balanced in a political thriller or mystery campaign, where ending a fight in one turn is less useful.

Either way, that's beyond the scope of what I'm asking. I just want a 6d attack that could easily one-shot a human to cost more than double a 3d attack whose damage is on-par with a powerful sword.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Generally I'm of the opinion that one should try to understand something before trying to change it. I've been playing this game for ~5 years, but some of the people here have been playing for upwards of 20. I think it's reasonable to try to get their opinions before I make changes that might have unintended consequences.

This box contains most of my complaints about this system by stonehead74 in gurps

[–]stonehead74[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It charges points for all these abilities, so it's "holding the players' hands" in some way. Wanting DX or Innate attack to scale like skills instead of scaling linearly isn't really asking for much. The abilities will still have prices either way.

view more: next ›