Include Perks/Feats

[CaptainPatch]

Definitely...illuminating.

Instead of "linear", perhaps we should be saying "mathematical". We are still dealing with the aspect that higher numbers are more favorable than the lower numbers that preceded them. However, instead of an arithmetic progression -- 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 etc. = 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. -- it may be an geometric progression -- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. -- or perhaps even exponential -- 1 x 1 (1), 2 x 2 (4), 3 x 3 (9), 4 x 4 (16), etc. Geometric and exponential would fit well with the Law of Diminishing Returns. The problem with the system is that it doesn't say what kind of progression is being used. That leaves the players in the dark, not knowing how the mechanics work -- and leaving us to have unresolvable debates such as this. _How_ the progression works is, imo, vital information, so that the player can make reasonable decisions as to whether to throw a 5th Skill Point at Skill X, or whether doing so will be a waste until such time as another 4 more points get applied to that Skill.

@ Marvel Super Heroes, the reason there is _always_ a 5% chance of failure is because the system is using a 1D20 die roll to determine success or failure -- and rolling a 1 is _always_ "failure". The outcomes for die rolls of 2-20 keep on improving as the character advances. So comparing chance of failure between wimp and demi-god renders the wrong interpretation. Instead compare the success outcomes to get a real grasp of how much more powerful the demi-god is.

@ D&D and the parenthetic numbers after the 18: IF a player rolled an 18 Strength, he then rolled a 1D100. [Actually, it was with two D20s. Both were numbered 0-9 twice. One die represented the tens digit and the other the ones digit. The results yielded a arithatic progression from 01 to (1)00.] Having demonstrated that the character was outstanding, the question was "Just how much more outstanding was he?" But keep in mind that whatever that gradation would be, a STR of 19 was still better. And a 20 would be better still. I don't recall precisely, but I seem to remember that the 100% was broken down into breaking point tiers so that getting significant improvements required that the player rolled 90 or higher. (And then disappointed when a Book of Lore gave him +1 STR and rendered that high percentile die roll meaningless.)

[Zombra]

Instead of "linear", perhaps we should be saying "mathematical". We are still dealing with the aspect that higher numbers are more favorable than the lower numbers that preceded them. However, instead of an arithmetic progression -- 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 etc. = 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. -- it may be an geometric progression -- 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. -- or perhaps even exponential -- 1 x 1 (1), 2 x 2 (4), 3 x 3 (9), 4 x 4 (16), etc.

Possibly. Or perhaps there is no pattern to the curve at all. (See D&D, etc.)

However, we have made progress. If you can accept a non-arithmetic progression, you can let go of the ridiculous assumption that since 60 Intelligence in Wasteland = 200 real-world IQ, 30 Int must = 100 IQ, meaning that starting characters with a 10 Int must have real-world IQ of about 33, making them all morons. You can also discard the "normal to demigod" model, or any other model which implies some level of preposterous competence or incompetence that is actually implied nowhere.

The problem with the system is that it doesn't say what kind of progression is being used. That leaves the players in the dark, not knowing how the mechanics work -- and leaving us to have unresolvable debates such as this.

It's only a problem if you insist on defining stats in terms of "real-world" (non-game) functions.

If one character can knock out Mike Tyson in 50 punches and one with a higher ST takes only 3, that's all we need to know for the purposes of a combat system. We don't have to try to figure out how many bags of feathers each one can lift; we don't need to insist that that only makes sense if so-and-so weighs so many pounds or can jump so high in the air. How many punches is all the system demands, so that's all the stat means.

If you want, you can add all the "flavor text" you like; you can say your characters are morons or geniuses or ninjas or featherweights or hideously ugly or witty or whatever you like. If that enhances your enjoyment of the game, great. If it detracts from the game by "revealing" a system that doesn't have an answer to every question, well, you've just ruined it for yourself. But hey, for some people, picking things apart is more fun than just letting them work as intended

[CaptainPatch]

It's only a problem if you insist on defining stats in terms of "real-world" (non-game) functions....

...If it detracts from the game by "revealing" a system that doesn't have an answer to every question, well, you've just ruined it for yourself.

For some reason, what I'm hearing is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mf3Bypyk8

It finally seeped into my psyche that one of the things that irritates me about the IQ values is that they don't need to get so large. Ultimately, initial Skills are paid for by Advancement/Adventure/whatever Points. (The 2 points you get each time you advance a level.) However in the case case of Skills. When you put Advancement Points into IQ, _then_ they turn into Skill Points and can be used to buy a new Skill or pump up an existing Skill. For example, say Skill X and Skill Y require an IQ of 20 and costs 3 Skill Points to acquire. Current IQ is 17. The player puts 3 Advancement Points into IQ, making the PC's IQ 20, and also creates 3 Skill Points which he uses to buy Skill X. But now if he wants that PC to also have Skill Y, he has to pour 3 more Advancement Points into IQ -- making IQ 23 -- and then use the new Skill Points to buy Skill Y. It does not need to be that way. That is, there's no actual need to be inflating IQ just to buy another min-20 Skill. Yes, place enough Advancement Points into IQ to satisfy the minimum requirements (and create an equal number of Skill Points to match the increase). But thereafter the raw Advancement Points should be able to buy whatever Skills at whatever "price" for Skills that already have the Attributes built up to the minimum requirements.

Instead of ending the game with IQ 60+, PCs could finish with just IQ 24 -- which isn't that much higher than the 18 best start value.

[Zombra]

For some reason, what I'm hearing is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mf3Bypyk8

Exactly!

It finally seeped into my psyche that one of the things that irritates me about the IQ values is that they don't need to get so large. Raw Advancement Points should be able to buy whatever Skills at whatever "price" for Skills that already have the Attributes built up to the minimum requirements.

I guess they could have done it that way, but there's no special reason they should have. The system used was fine. There's nothing wrong with large stat numbers.

If it helps, since you're familiar with D&D "exceptional strength", just think of any number over 18 as "exceptional" ... again, this requires a shift in your symbol system, but if you think of 19 as 18(01), and 20 as 18(02), and 60 as 18(42). The game effects are exactly the same, but since the symbology is a big deal to you for some reason, I don't know, maybe that would make a difference.

Unless you're into Kabbalah, you shouldn't let the symbols hold such power over your spirit
One zebra's opinion.

[CaptainPatch]

If it helps, since you're familiar with D&D "exceptional strength", just think of any number over 18 as "exceptional" ... again, this requires a shift in your symbol system, but if you think of 19 as 18(01), and 20 as 18(02), and 60 as 18(42).

Hmm. I suppose that is a reasonable way to look at it.

Unless you're into Kabbalah, ....

Who told???

[Drool]

Instead of ending the game with IQ 60+, PCs could finish with just IQ 24 -- which isn't that much higher than the 18 best start value.

It's a game balance issue. Skills have an IQ requirement to keep you from ignoring the attribute and to lock the player out of certain skills from the beginning of the game (imagine how much easier it would have been if you could start with Doctor). If IQ and SP were divorced, it would make it even more difficult to acquire the later skills and would require players "wasting" more advancement points trying to get them. So, we've got someone with an IQ of 17, who wants two 3-point skills that require an IQ of 20. In the original system, it would take 3 levels with all points into IQ, giving him 6 skill points and an IQ of 23. With the separate, though, it requires 5 levels. Two to bring your IQ to 20 with 1 point left over, but you still need 6 skill points, which will still take 3 levels, leaving you still with 1 point left over. Also, you've had to get 3 levels before you can get the first skill (2 from a level plus the 1 remainder from raising IQ), whereas with the original system, you're getting your first skill after 2 levels.

And that's just that one specific example. Breaking them apart means that you need to first grind up IQ and then grind skill points. Doubly disastrous if you wanted to add lower level skills that you didn't grab during character generation (like Assault Rifle). With the original system, while you were boosting your IQ for the late-game skills, you were generating SP that you could horde or use. A small price to pay for having higher IQ levels.

And 60 is way the hell off. My characters rarely needed to go much above 25 or 26.

[CaptainPatch]

So, we've got someone with an IQ of 17, who wants two 3-point skills that require an IQ of 20.

BUT, when the PC was raised from IQ 17 to IQ 20, that gave him 3 Skill Point -- enough to acquire Doctor. Thereafter, if he wanted to acquire a 2nd min IQ 20 Skill, he would have to raise his IQ _another_ 3 points = 23, in order to get the three additional Skill Points with which to acquire the second Skill. If instead the player could just use 3 leveling up points, he could get that second Skill in just two promotions.

In the original system, it would take 3 levels with all points into IQ, giving him 6 skill points and an IQ of 23. With the separate, though, it requires 5 levels. Two to bring your IQ to 20 with 1 point left over, but you still need 6 skill points, which will still take 3 levels, leaving you still with 1 point left over. Also, you've had to get 3 levels before you can get the first skill (2 from a level plus the 1 remainder from raising IQ), whereas with the original system, you're getting your first skill after 2 levels.

As best as I can recall from having played just a few months ago, that "1 Skill level costs 1 Skill Point; 2 Skill levels costs 4 Skill Points, etc." applied to ONLY initially acquiring a Skill. Attributes bumped up one for one:

You're also awarded an additional two points that you can add to any attribute you choose. Put both points on the same attribute or put one point on two separate attributes.

And that's just that one specific example. Breaking them apart means that you need to first grind up IQ and then grind skill points.

But not if Skills can be acquired with both IQ-derived Skill Points or raw leveling up points. (Points put into other Attributes are still totally "consumed", just as in the original. Apparently the other Attributes are static while IQ is the only Attribute that "keeps on giving".)

And 60 is way the hell off. My characters rarely needed to go much above 25 or 26.

My PCs averaged about 45. I seem to recall VAX having an IQ of 60.

[Drool]

BUT, when the PC was raised from IQ 17 to IQ 20, that gave him 3 Skill Point -- enough to acquire Doctor. Thereafter, if he wanted to acquire a 2nd min IQ 20 Skill, he would have to raise his IQ _another_ 3 points = 23, in order to get the three additional Skill Points with which to acquire the second Skill. If instead the player could just use 3 leveling up points, he could get that second Skill in just two promotions.

No, he couldn't. He would have to raise the IQ to 20 (two levels) and then acquire 6 skill points (three levels). Separating IQ from SP makes it harder to get high level skills, not easier.

As best as I can recall from having played just a few months ago, that "1 Skill level costs 1 Skill Point; 2 Skill levels costs 4 Skill Points, etc." applied to ONLY initially acquiring a Skill. Attributes bumped up one for one

I fail to see how this is relevant to your example of someone with a 17 IQ wanting two 3-points skills that require an IQ of 20. We're not talking about raising existing skills; we're talking about gaining new skills.

But not if Skills can be acquired with both IQ-derived Skill Points or raw leveling up points. (Points put into other Attributes are still totally "consumed", just as in the original. Apparently the other Attributes are static while IQ is the only Attribute that "keeps on giving".)

So now you want points in IQ to give you skill points and free skill points for leveling up.

My PCs averaged about 45. I seem to recall VAX having an IQ of 60.

Vax doesn't count because he's an NPC. Also, his IQ was 30.

I have no idea why on earth you raised your IQ to 45 as that's a complete waste of leveling points. I can only assume you decided to buy up skills that were already level 3 and 4. I have a party of characters that have gone through the game (via the reset utility) many, many times (they're level 80 or so) and none of them have an IQ over 35.

In my single-ranger playthrough, Deadmeat raised his IQ to 32 (at level 14/15), but that's because every utility skill needed to be on the same character; otherwise, skills like Cryptology, Bomb Disarm, Picklock, Safe Crack, Clone Tech and Cyborg Tech could have been spread out across four characters.

[CaptainPatch]

My PCs averaged about 45. I seem to recall VAX having an IQ of 60.

Vax doesn't count because he's an NPC. Also, his IQ was 30.

My bad. I was confusing his CON with his IQ.

Overall, disregard pretty much everything I've been saying. (You probably would, anyway, without my endorsement.) It seems I've been blurring the details of several RPGs. (I blame it on the Alzheimers.)

[Zombra]

Overall, disregard pretty much everything I've been saying. (You probably would, anyway, without my endorsement.) It seems I've been blurring the details of several RPGs. (I blame it on the Alzheimers.)

You've said some goofy stuff, but a few interesting discussions have arisen as a result

[nustada]

I like the idea of perks, but I like perks that instead of x is now y percent better, they change the game mechanics in some way. For example, a perk for a sniper build maybe could be a perk that would allow you character to do ricochet shots (with a major accuracy penalty of course). I think the most powerful perks should be given to "bad" or unconventional builds, like a PC with a character that has high charisma and high pugilism to have a "say unkle" perk which would allow hostile NPC's surrender early, Or a perk for a PC that has a lot of points in engineering, medic and light guns could get a perk be able to "shoot" modified stimpacks to heal, with shotguns.

[Zombra]

Eh. At the risk of repeating myself - the game-changing "mini-superpowers" that are Perks were cool for Fallout, but they really don't belong in Wasteland. Perks would be a dramatic shift from both the meat of Wasteland's character development (Skills), and from its more "analog" sense of progression, by which I mean it's a little weird for a guy to go "Ding! Now I can shoot 3 bullets at once!" "Ding! Now I'm immune to poison!" Wasteland characters were weak as hell at the beginning of the game and very powerful by the end, but every increase was gradual, even learning a new Skill.

Perks are fine for games that have them built in from the beginning, but Wasteland didn't, and such a drastic change to the most important part of an RPG (character development) would be a real blow to the franchise.

One zebra's opinion.

[CaptainPatch]

Eh. At the risk of repeating myself - the game-changing "mini-superpowers" that are Perks were cool for Fallout, but they really don't belong in Wasteland.

I really disliked the major game-changer Perks. Like Mysterious Stranger where in a moment of crisis, a guardian angel would come to your rescue. The minor tweaks like Gun Nut, Toughness, Comprehension, etc. where you had some (relatively) minor bumps to stats were okay. [But not those that could be taken repeatedly.] Then there were a slew of others that I thought were pointedly ridiculous: Black Widow/Lady Killer -- why should the target's gender enhance basic ability? Bloody Mess -- Really? A perk to modify kill graphics? Shouldn't that be in Graphics Options? Animal Friend -- Animals that don't know you _at all_ suddenly you got animals come to your rescue, just like Mysterious Stranger? Grim Reaper's Sprint -- killing a target is so invigorating, suddenly you essentially get an entire action cycle for free? (Also overpowered because if you then kill another target in that free action cycle, you can get yet another free cycle. And another. And another. And another... Like in Billiards you can "run the table" and never give your opponent a shot, you could possibly take out an entire gang of Raiders at one go.)

[Ronin73]

Eh. At the risk of repeating myself - the game-changing "mini-superpowers" that are Perks were cool for Fallout, but they really don't belong in Wasteland.

I really disliked the major game-changer Perks. Like Mysterious Stranger where in a moment of crisis, a guardian angel would come to your rescue. The minor tweaks like Gun Nut, Toughness, Comprehension, etc. where you had some (relatively) minor bumps to stats were okay. [But not those that could be taken repeatedly.] Then there were a slew of others that I thought were pointedly ridiculous: Black Widow/Lady Killer -- why should the target's gender enhance basic ability? Bloody Mess -- Really? A perk to modify kill graphics? Shouldn't that be in Graphics Options? Animal Friend -- Animals that don't know you _at all_ suddenly you got animals come to your rescue, just like Mysterious Stranger? Grim Reaper's Sprint -- killing a target is so invigorating, suddenly you essentially get an entire action cycle for free? (Also overpowered because if you then kill another target in that free action cycle, you can get yet another free cycle. And another. And another. And another... Like in Billiards you can "run the table" and never give your opponent a shot, you could possibly take out an entire gang of Raiders at one go.)

Definitely agree with this perspective. Wasteland 2 does not need Fallouteque overpowered perks in a group setting, but some of the lesser perks would be okay, like a small boost to some skills or stats.

Also, I don't think the party need as many perks overall . I'm thinking probably 1 or maybe 2 perks per PC, maximum.

[nustada]

An alternative system to level perks could be, missions where paths are available based on high compound stats and the paths are mutually exclusive, each path gives an interesting character modifying trait that would give some sort of benefit to unbalanced builds. That way the quest giver "teaches" one of your party you something rather than it popping out of thin air.

But I would still prefer unlocked abilities over x*y sort of improvements. That way it makes your characters more flexible, rather than simply overpowered.

As an example a perk that you could get with high high perception, agility and engineering you could get a mission where you retrieve a "Army manual of IEDs" to a NPC rogue as a reward you get schooled in the way of mines allowing that PC to be immune/hypersensitive to mines, where if you happen to step on a land mind, it says something like "you sense you are about trigger land mine, but you decide it isn't a good idea". Or alternatively you could return the book to another NPC collector, who trains a character with high agility, perception, and throwing how to throw a mine so it behaves alternatively as grenade. Or even return the same book to another character, which in exchange teaches a character with high intelligence, engineering and explosives to build mines out of various materials. Or instead of getting any perk at all you could accept a cash reward, if for example you don't think it is useful or don't have any member matching the demanding requirements.

[Zombra]

What you're describing sounds to me like it could just as easily be done through the Skill system ... rare Skills with very specific requirements. I have no problem with that. Toaster Repair was such a Skill after all.

[Drool]

Black Widow/Lady Killer

This was actually one of the most powerful perks in the game, and was made even more broken when the same-sex options were added to New Vegas. The bonus damage was largely negligible (honestly, by the time 5% makes a difference, you're already managing overkill), but the dialogue options were well worth the price of admission. And with successful dialogue "checks" netting extra XP, these perks made things faster.

Animal Friend -- Animals that don't know you _at all_ suddenly you got animals come to your rescue, just like Mysterious Stranger?

It's not like Animal Friend, Mysterious Stranger, or Miss Fortune were controllable by the player. If animals were in the vicinity and if you had bought both levels of the perk, animals would come to your aid, as long as you weren't fighting another animal. It's not like you were summoning yao guai from the ether to aid you in combat.

Grim Reaper's Sprint -- killing a target is so invigorating, suddenly you essentially get an entire action cycle for free? (Also overpowered because if you then kill another target in that free action cycle, you can get yet another free cycle.

It was pretty meh in practice, though. And anything cause of death outside of direct damage via VATS meant you didn't get the refresh, including allies, environmental hazards, friendly fire, splash damage, persistent damage, etc. Also, it was seriously nerfed in New Vegas, only returning 20 AP. Also, if you didn't use VATS, it was completely useless.

No, the most broken perk comes from New Vegas: Jury Rigging. Them's Good Eatin' is probably a close second, only because most of your targets are going to be living, and the Thin Red Paste and Blood Sausage were freaking insane healers.

That being said, I'm still largely against perks for Wasteland. I would be okay with traits (as they tended to have bonuses and penalties), but I'm happy leaving perks to the Fallout universe.

[nustada]

But in arguing for level based perks against the idea "abilities just appears" as a negative. Some things do work like that, for example, for a long time I could do handstands, and for a long time I could do pushups, but also for a long time I COULDN'T do handstand pushups, until one day I just could.

In life we pick up new skills like this all the time and are always sacrificing many skills while honing one, thus the addage "No one is good at everything but everyone is good at something". Skill gains usually are just minor variations of things we already know.

In a game you could never simulate that affect without making it take literally 10 years straight to play it through. So I think, as long as best perks merely make up for unbalanced and inherently weak/weird builds by exploiting the PC stats. The stats do not simply multiply existing value, but adds new "tricks" for the character they should be fine and fun.

An example, a perk could be, a high charisma and agility character could entertain a bar one every X days by playing the piano for money. It would be boring as hell to have a grinding system for learning to play the piano, and it would make less sense for just by having those stats means you automatically can entertain with a piano. A low level perk in that case I think would be cool.

[CaptainPatch]

Hmm. It seems to me that most Perks are aspect of learning more about the doing of something, or else learning how to do something new entirely that you hadn't known before. (That is, a Skill you did NOT select during character creation.) WL already has the "learning by doing" feature by routinely bumping up a Skill level when you frequently use that particular Skill. It seems to me that it might/should be possible to program in a certain amount of HOW you choose to perform a variety of tasks. For example, using existing Skills, suppose a PC did NOT take Acrobatics as an initial Skill. If the party spends time running up and down sand dunes in Needles, there is a chance PCs with Acrobatics will get that Skill bumped up. What about those PCs that did NOT take Acrobatics? Shouldn't there be a chance that going through the exercise will bestow Acrobatics 1 upon them as well? (And thereafter, the opportunity to bump it up further.)

Along those line, during the course of the adventure, situations may/WILL come up where a given PC has the opportunity to "try something new". How about having successful completion of the unSkilled task result in a chance to gain a Skill or Perk?

Somewhat related: I can see a player abusing this mechanism by having a PC without Lockpicking trying to gain the Skill by repeatedly attempting to get the Skill via a successful Lockpick attempt. To suppress something this, introduce an Inventory item = Lockpicks. If failure results in a broken Lockpick, the player would/should be reluctant to make such low-odds attempts for fear of running out of Lockpicks. Ergo, he would be motivated to use the PC with the highest Lockpick level rather than wasting them by having PCs without the Skill burn through the (finite) supply of Lockpicks, all for naught.

[nustada]

Hmm. It seems to me that most Perks are aspect of learning more about the doing of something, or else learning how to do something new entirely that you hadn't known before. (That is, a Skill you did NOT select during character creation.) WL already has the "learning by doing" feature by routinely bumping up a Skill level when you frequently use that particular Skill. It seems to me that it might/should be possible to program in a certain amount of HOW you choose to perform a variety of tasks. For example, using existing Skills, suppose a PC did NOT take Acrobatics as an initial Skill. If the party spends time running up and down sand dunes in Needles, there is a chance PCs with Acrobatics will get that Skill bumped up. What about those PCs that did NOT take Acrobatics? Shouldn't there be a chance that going through the exercise will bestow Acrobatics 1 upon them as well? (And thereafter, the opportunity to bump it up further.)

Along those line, during the course of the adventure, situations may/WILL come up where a given PC has the opportunity to "try something new". How about having successful completion of the unSkilled task result in a chance to gain a Skill or Perk?

Somewhat related: I can see a player abusing this mechanism by having a PC without Lockpicking trying to gain the Skill by repeatedly attempting to get the Skill via a successful Lockpick attempt. To suppress something this, introduce an Inventory item = Lockpicks. If failure results in a broken Lockpick, the player would/should be reluctant to make such low-odds attempts for fear of running out of Lockpicks. Ergo, he would be motivated to use the PC with the highest Lockpick level rather than wasting them by having PCs without the Skill burn through the (finite) supply of Lockpicks, all for naught.

A lot of games have tried this, notably skyrim. And it almost invariably leads to mindless/not fun grinding. Or half the interwebz filled with virus laiden macros for people who like to cheat.