|
Post by smay63 on Sept 19, 2011 16:00:44 GMT
One of my players has put this forward after playing the game and later, reading the rules:
ATTRIBUTES Human average is only 78.5 Elf average is 88.5 Dwarf average is 82.5
STATS HUMAN ELF DWARF STR 10.5/ 10.5/ 13 CON 10.5/ 13/ 16.5 DEX 10.5/ 13/ 10 SIZ 13/ 13/ 9.5 INT 13/ 13/ 13 POW 10.5/ 13/ 10.5 CHA 10.5/ 13/ 10 TOTAL 78.5/ 88.5/ 82.5 AVG 11.2/ 12.6/ 11.8 AVG=Average
As is plain, being an elf far outweighs either human or dwarf in basic stats terms. And as stats are used as the base for most skills, this is plainly unfair. There needs to be some method of balancing stats/skills.
One method is to start with the same base attributes for ALL races, then add modifiers suitable to each race. For example, 3d6 for ALL races base attributes, followed by (+2 DEX, -2 CON for elves, or +2 CON, -2 DEX for dwarves).
Background points is another method of addressing this imbalance. Suggest there being a background (humans and dwarfs) that is defined as:- 1 point = 10 attribute points to distribute as player sees fit.
MAGIC As setting is supposed to be low magic/high fantasy, needs to be some method of making magic potentially undesirable. Ideal options is armour/shield interferes with magic to some degree or magic has to be paid for as an option at character creation. For example, each armour point either increases the Magic cost of each spell by 1 per magnitude. So if someone is wearing scale armour (Armour 4) then a magnitude 2 Weapon Enhance will cost 2(base) + 4(armour)*2 = 10 Magic points.
|
|
|
Post by smay63 on Sept 19, 2011 16:03:41 GMT
When I created my own RPG system (also D100 type system), he read through it and made amendments to balance the game during character creation.
The above are his thoughts (house rules, if you like), on balancing the Aos.
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 19, 2011 17:09:18 GMT
Just looking at the Characteristics doesn't really give you the full picture...
...for example let's compare humans and elves:
The elven stat-line is better that the human one - however, elves only get one background point during character creation, whereas humans get three (so you could argue that humans are actually better at specialising as they can assign, on average, an extra 10% to any skill they see fit - if they spend their BPs on skill increases).
In addition, elves can only ever have one fate point at any time (humans have no such restrictions) - however, elves have a few racial special abilities and can use innate magic (though humans can use magic if they take the 'elven lineage' option during character creation).
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 19, 2011 17:39:34 GMT
In addition - how much/little magic is available to the characters (as they earn and spend improvement points) is largely left up to the GM (I know I seem to say this a lot, and perhaps I'm overburdening the GM a little - but I wanted to encourage GM's to do their own thing, and not be tied to too rigid a rules system ...well that's my excuse anyway ) However, for a character to become an accomplished spell-caster they are not only going to have to use their Improvement Points on spells (assuming the GM gives them some way of learning new spells* or improving existing ones), but they are also going to have increase their magical skills too (to increase their chance of success). But you could always apply the same restrictions for Sorcery spells (see the table on p44) to innate magic too (if you need to). Anyway, I hope that makes some kind of sense ...but don't let that stop you house-ruling as you see fit (it's what we all do as GMs anyway ). *take CoC as an example ...characters/investigators don't generally have the option to add spells to their repertoire just by spending 'points'
|
|
|
Post by smay63 on Sept 19, 2011 18:00:15 GMT
This was his reply (OUCH!): I'm afraid I disagree completely with his opinion...
If you assume average rolls at character creation, then you simply have to count up all the extra points that elves will get over humans.
For example, average elf DEX is 13, whereas human average is 10.5. There are 10 skills that have DEX as part of their initial calculation, which means that elves have 10 * 2.5 = 25 skill points more on average than humans (and that's just counting DEX alone!!!). Once you calculate in those extra points, the human background points are utterly overshadowed. And that isn't counting the racial abilities.
To be honest, I'd rather take an elf (even with the single Fate points) as their average higher stats mean you'll be getting hurt less often (and Fate points work slightly less effectively than in Warhammer Fantasy anyways).
If we can''t adjust the stat lines to compensate (via one of the methods I've outlined, or another) I'm going to create an elven swordmistress.
Ade
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 19, 2011 20:17:05 GMT
They are totally fair points ...though I will say that an elf doesn't really have a say where those points go, and will usually only have a couple of % more in some skills (some of which might rarely get used) whereas a human character can put those 10 points in a particular skill he/she wants/needs to be good at. For example, an elf with average stats could get 12+14+30+5 = 61 Close Combat, whereas a Human could get 12+12+30+15=69 (on average). So yes, an 'average' elf will definitely have a better base score for several of his/her skills (though only by a negligible amount i.e. usually 2%) - whereas a human is slightly better at specialising (which I hope fits the setting, since the elves in the AoS are more akin to Tolkien's elves than D&D elves). However fate points shouldn't be dismissed, as they can be very useful (and a human character has no limit on how many he/she can accrue) - with most folks usually saving at least one to negate a major wound* or avoid a character death (meaning folks playing elves will be a little wary about spending their only fate point on a re-roll). But I will hold my hands up and say that I do favour 'flavour/feel' over 'ultimate game balance' (consider that a good or bad thing ...as I personally see the AoS elves being more than just humans with a +2/-2 stat adjustment) ...but once again that is just my own take on things, and my vision for the AoS ...which of course can be tinkered with to better suit your own tastes and preferences however you see fit (i.e. if you feel that humans need a boost, you could simply double their background points). (*obviously your own MW tables makes major wounds a little less daunting). Just a quick correction (though it doesn't affect the points made by much) ... stat rolls fall in the range of 2-6 per die ...as 1's are always re-rolled, so a human's average dex is 12, and an elf's is 14
|
|
ade
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ade on Sept 19, 2011 21:44:50 GMT
Actually I mentioned to Steve, I wouldn't double the background points for humans.
I would multiply them by 10!
And of course we have to consider dwarves too. They get screwed by having low SIZ, which counts against them with physical damage modifiers.
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 19, 2011 22:39:13 GMT
Hello Ade and welcome to the forums ...I wouldn't double the background points for humans. I would multiply them by 10! ...for an average of 150 skill points or 10 stat increases? And of course we have to consider dwarves too. They get screwed by having low SIZ, which counts against them with physical damage modifiers. Even the weakest/smallest possible dwarf (STR 10 / SIZ 8) will have a +0 DM ...but dwarves are, by their very nature, smaller than humans - which accounts for their low SIZ attribute (once again we're not talking 'medium-size' D&D dwarves in the AoS ).
|
|
ade
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ade on Sept 19, 2011 23:38:49 GMT
Both! Not that I don't appreciate the potential differences between regular D&D and AoS, but most roleplayers will see the difference between elves, humans and dwarves, and who wants to play a character that starts out weaker than another one? I wouldn't.
So I would offer either an extra 10 attribute points to humans, or some extra skill points to make up the difference (maybe around 100-200).
Dwarves? Well, as I said basing damage on size worked well enough for runequest (where most people were human), but having it based purely on STR and SIZ makes dwarves seem like halflings.
Perhaps dwarves should get an automatic increase of one category on their damage modifier, as well as some attribute bonuses to help them catch up with elves?
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 20, 2011 10:54:28 GMT
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Elves will have (on average) a total stat-line of 8 points higher than that of a human. So giving a human an extra 10 points to spend on stats however he/she wishes would take them above the elves in that respect (doubly so - as they would be allowed to assign these points however they see fit). I know that you think elves are themselves a little overpowered (and I'm not dismissing all of your arguments out of hand*), but the increased elven stat-line will only give that player a total (on average) of around 30* more skill points (mostly scattered around as 2% here and there - which is not that great to be honest). ...so giving humans an additional 150(ish) skill points (to assign at will) would be total overkill in my opinion. I also think that, while the maths clearly shows that elves will have higher totals overall (if everything is added together), the ability to increase a specific skill (as with background points) is definitely worth more than what the % alone can show. So, to conclude, yes the elves are probably slightly better than humans overall (though their lack of fate points makes them a little more squishy), and I can appreciate that this might rub some players up the wrong way, but if it really is that big a deal the GM could quite easily rule that the party consists of humans only (in fact the book recommends this to begin with). However I urge folks to at least give the game a try 'as written' before tinkering with it too much, and just a build a character and have fun with it (without worrying too much if the guy next to you has more skill points, more fate points, access to magic, a better sword, and so on). *I might consider giving humans an extra background point or two if I do a revised edition.
**assuming both the human and elf character use their BPs on skill increasesPS ... aren't you glad that 'high-elves' didn't make the final version
|
|
ade
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ade on Sept 20, 2011 11:23:15 GMT
Having imbalanced races isn't the best way to encourage play, and I frankly think your argument that "humans can specialise" doesn't hold water given the relatively small percentages involved.
If we assume a long-running campaign giving generous Improvement Point rewards, how long would it take for humans to match elves in terms of attribute points?
IIRC, it costs 3 IP to add +1 to an attribute, so 24 IP to take them average out the same. What is the elf doing with his 24 IP at the same time? Well, potentially adding 24 * 2d4 = 192 (max rolls) to his skills assuming he doesn't bother with Magic.
It doesn't add up and consequently doesn't make sense to play human as opposed to elf, and I like playing humans in most RPGs.
Even if we consider Fate points as a potential balancer, supposing that each player is forced to spend a Fate point to avoid a crippling major wound each game, there's no benefit to being human as he gains nothing.
Of course, that's not taking into account the fact that the human's skills are some percentages lower than the elf to start with, and hence his margin for serious injury is slightly greater.
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 20, 2011 11:42:13 GMT
Which is why I think simply doubling a humans BP (as I stated previously) might be a good solution rather than the +150 skill points ...yes you still don't get as many points in total as elves, however you can assign them however you like.
However, I'd love to get other peoples thoughts and opinions on this.
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 20, 2011 12:03:55 GMT
If we assume a long-running campaign giving generous Improvement Point rewards, how long would it take for humans to match elves in terms of attribute points? In all truth, that would be a terrible idea, as you would be better off spending your 24 IP in the same fashion as the elf - giving you very similar totals (though the option is there for people who want stat increases ...which in reality is most likely to be used to obtain a better damage modifier, more hit points, or more magic points). As I say I'm not dismissing anything, I just didn't agree with the solution you offered (as it appeared to make the human-elf disparity even larger, but in reverse ). Also re-rolls, avoiding death, and so on via fate points are a little difficult to express on cold hard numbers (so it's hard to put them into the 'balance equation' so to speak). Also I'd just like to add that I'm really appreciating all of the input!
|
|
|
Post by CSP Kris on Sept 20, 2011 13:38:23 GMT
As I say I'm not dismissing anything... ...also I'd just like to add that I'm really appreciating all of the input! Actually, lets take a look at how things could change for an article for the website (and maybe to better suit your game since you have lessened the effects of major wounds, and thereby lessened the need for fate points) using some of your suggestions, some of my own, and generally trying to equate how many BP each race should have (which I personally think is the best way to iron out any perceived balance issues): 1. For the minimum of customisation each race should have at least one BP Total: HUMANS 1 / ELVES 1 / DWARVES 1(this seems like a fairly obvious choice) * * * 2. Elves get a few minor racial abilities, as do dwarves, which I will equate to one additional BP for humans. Total: HUMANS 2 / ELVES 1 / DWARVES 1(I think this is a fair assumption. You could argue the abilities are worth more than that, but the BP can be used for anything, and so has a greater flexibility). * * * 3. Elves generally get around 40 more total skill percentage than humans (excluding any BP increases) - though these are generally spread out among the skills at 2% each (i.e. the player has no say about where they actually go). Dwarves and Humans final base scores for all their abilities add up to roughly the same (there is actually 1% in it). However assigning points to skills is far more useful than having a general 2% spread out over many skills, and so I'll use a rough ratio of 3:1* to express this - which means that humans/dwarves need enough BP to grant them an average of around 15% in total (i.e. 3 BP) Total: HUMANS 5 / ELVES 1 / DWARVES 4(*you could go up to 2:1 for a total of 4 BP I suppose - but as I say, the ability to assign those points to anything you like far outweighs a generic +2 here and there ...at least in my opinion. It's possible that I would also consider a 4:1 ratio . * * * 4. Dwarves, calculate their damage modifier at one step higher than the other races - which has to be worth at least as much as a stat increase, and so let us assume 3 BP. HUMANS 5 / ELVES 1 / DWARVES 1(this is simply at your suggestion, I'm personally not that fond of the idea - but it is an option. Alternately it could be included as a dwarf only BP option for 3 points) * * * 5. Other benefits/drawbacks: Elves have access to magic as standard, have a small chance of having an extra HP or DM than a human, and still have more skill points in total - however they only ever get one fate point** Dwarves will generally have 1HP more than humans, but will move slower. (**I personally think only having access to one FP is more limiting that you do yourself, as a human character could quite easily enter battle with 3 or 4 points and feel a lot safer than an elf with only the one - but let us assume they aren't quite so important for the purpose of this exercise). * * * This takes the original BP totals from H3 / E1 / D2 to H5 / E1 / D1. This is of course just breaking things down into simple 'this=this' terms and is a little subjective, but I think it addresses the 'balance' issue reasonably well (though you and I obviously have different views on how unbalanced the races are - which is fine), but it might be a suitable middle ground upon which to meet were we gaming together. Also, as stated previously, I'd love to hear other peoples view on the matter
|
|
|
Post by smay63 on Sept 20, 2011 18:35:08 GMT
I like the idea of playing a Human (with 3-4 FP). I can understand Fate Points being useful during life threatening situations. I would be more eager to engage in combat knowing I have a few FP to counter any major wounds that might occur.
I also agree that something needs to be done about Dwarves low SIZ. BP used to give them extra HP maybe, as HP depends on STR + SIZ; and the poor dwarf has low SIZ. Using BP to compensate would be good, as Dwarves are supposed to be very hardy.
Some middle ground needs to be achieved (house rules or supplement maybe), but nothing OTT concerning character creation/improvement. No overkill, please. Something to balance out the character creation/improvement for all 3 races.
|
|