Skip to content
CaptainPatch wrote: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.
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.
Zombra wrote: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.
CaptainPatch wrote: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. 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.
Zombra wrote: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).
Zombra wrote:Unless you're into Kabbalah, ....
CaptainPatch wrote: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.
Drool wrote: So, we've got someone with an IQ of 17, who wants two 3-point skills that require an IQ of 20.
Drool wrote: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.
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.
Drool wrote: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.
Drool wrote:And 60 is way the hell off. My characters rarely needed to go much above 25 or 26.
CaptainPatch wrote: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.
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
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".)
My PCs averaged about 45. I seem to recall VAX having an IQ of 60.
Drool wrote: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.
CaptainPatch wrote: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 wrote: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.
CaptainPatch wrote:Zombra wrote: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.)
CaptainPatch wrote:Black Widow/Lady Killer
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.
CaptainPatch wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests