Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modern Age accuracy and fighting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post


    Yeah, AGE does some things really well, and others not so much.
    Yeah, about the time I realized there were really only two things I appreciated about the system, and plenty I didn't, I walked away. But I don't always know when to just let something go.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    Well, see, the fact that attack was so close to automatic wasn't a virtue to me either, so this is just moving around the deck chairs.
    That's why I like the derivative method. If you have a 6 STR, 3 DEX, 0 PER, under D-AGE you would have +6 Attack, but under the derived method only +3. +Attack would be more valuable, and even though it would take 3 stats for another Attack, each one would still give you something.

    But I should just stop commenting about AGE based games; there's a reason I stopped doing anything with them.
    Yeah, AGE does some things really well, and others not so much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Well, see, the fact that attack was so close to automatic wasn't a virtue to me either, so this is just moving around the deck chairs.

    But I should just stop commenting about AGE based games; there's a reason I stopped doing anything with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    But you have that regardless. Due to the way AGE works, you just have to be successful, so without altering TNs, diminishing returns really hits at about +7. With just a focus and charge/aim, every character has a +3 at level 2 and it's relatively easy to make up the remaining +4 with stats, spells, gear, etc.

    Because of the diminishing returns, that leaves your non-soft capped stats as always being more attractive. +1 damage is just more beneficial than +1 attack. D-AGE manages to be "ok" because the attack roll is really just whether or not there are SP. A benefit is imo only a benefit if it actually gives you something, and for the most part it doesn't matter how much +Attack you receive. You could get +4 Attack/STR, and warriors would still want 7 STR or so. Where F-AGE fails is that FIG is a pure dump stat for any non-warrior. And it doesn't really limit the importance of STR -- the majority of points will just come from other sources (DEX, CON).

    While I can see your point, that it's detrimental to have uber-stats, imo it's equally detrimental to have a forced spread. AGE already has built in safeguards against piling too much in 1 stat: ability advancements and the bell curve. With the former, the difference between a +9 stat and a +7 stat is 5 advancements iirc that could shore up other areas. With the latter consideration, the difference between those two scores is realistically a percentage or two for most rolls.

    Mind you, I said D-AGE was merely ok. It definitely has room for improvement. Because Attack didn't matter, neither did Defense and because mages had a built in uber stat, resist bonuses were really a waste of time. I found that actually uncapping stats was more beneficial to diversification. You had more actual points to play with, so my players spread them around more. That, and mages had more reasons to put points into CUN and WIL (bonus spells and more MP).

    This is why I don't say D-AGE is perfect. If I were starting over, I'd definitely look into making a derived +Attack value. Personally, I dislike meaningless rolls and I find that AGE attack rolls borders on that. Getting stunts or not, and failing to do anything despite being successful both lack drama. But at the same time, I feel the addition of the FIG stat really limits your customizability. The average, imo, allows for a wider variety.

    TL;DR: D-AGE needs work, but F-AGE is a step backwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    I'm against a given stat being so attractive its a no-brainer, yes. There should be a trade-off between whether having one stat higher or others at more modest levels is more useful. Incarnations of AGE have been particularly poor at that, and it doesn't really matter to me that different stats matter for different classes.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    So you're against classes having primary stats? IMO, comparing warriors with STRs of 0 vs 6 is invalid because low STR warriors simply don't exist. And it doesn't make it an attractive option as much as a class minimum.

    Another reason it doesn't matter is because Attack doesn't really matter. +7 is what you really need - more than that is wasted. +2 from a focus (+1 post 11), +1 from Aim/Charge. That leaves you to pick up +4 between gear, debuffs, buffs, stats, runes if playing D-AGE, etc.

    And you can blame the bell curve for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    That just seems to reinforce its attractiveness even more to me, and thus the problem as I see it.

    Basically, it carried over the attractiveness of Strength as the core attribute for melee attackers from D&D and made it even stronger. That in no way seems a virtue, and is all the more surprising given as I recall in their prior attempt at a house system (True20) they hadn't done that.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    That just means it was attractive enough to do right out the gate, which doesn't seem to counter my point that it was too beneficial in general.
    Eh. I see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Pre-start to start is no change, imo. Furthermore, many weapons have a minimum STR of 3, so you're really not going to see values below that no matter what the benefit change is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    I disagree in practice, not in theory. In theory, yeah the double benefit of +Att/Dam is really strong at low levels. In practice, though? With STR requirements, you're likely starting at a 4 STR, so you're skipping over where you really get the double benefit.
    That just means it was attractive enough to do right out the gate, which doesn't seem to counter my point that it was too beneficial in general.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTolputt
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    Yeah, I get that. But stats don't really translate 1:1. The Running focus applies equally to DEX (parkour) or STR (sprinting) as it does CON.
    I consider that an issue with the definition of the Running focus and the desire/need for the system to tie foci to a single Attribute.

    I consider Constitution (Running) to be focused on marathon running, as implied by linking it to attribute for endurance. I would consider allowing a DEX (Running) focus for parkour style movement. Or, if needed for clarity, create a "DEX (Parkour)" focus for characters that are good at navigating crowded environments at speed but not necessarily running the ten minute mile.

    I understand where you're coming from, it just feels very off (to me) adding CON in for a test having near nothing at all to do with endurance or stamina like shooting is (bows or guns). Each to their own. Having talked this through, I think splitting the DEX into two stats makes for a good compromise with a few added benefits elsewhere. I'll let the board know how tests go.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by Darkdreamer View Post
    Eh, you still needed to get at least some of your attack from somewhere other than just Foci; most people don't consider a 8+ on 3D6 really adequate for the long-term on routine bland opponents. They might not go up to a 5 for that reason, but I still think it made Strength too attractive up to 3.

    (Of course this only applied to Warriors since almost no one else could use Heavy Weapons).
    I disagree in practice, not in theory. In theory, yeah the double benefit of +Att/Dam is really strong at low levels. In practice, though? With STR requirements, you're likely starting at a 4 STR, so you're skipping over where you really get the double benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by BTolputt View Post
    Still feels a bit of a stretch even with that explanation... cos really, those are simply elements of skill that anyone, hearty or weedy, can learn. Take a quick gander at the archers representing their nations in archery for instance - their imaginary CON stats are all over the place because endurance & vitality isn't really needed to be a good shot.

    I get wanting three attributes, as it makes the math nicer, but it simply doesn't make much sense.
    Yeah, I get that. But stats don't really translate 1:1. The Running focus applies equally to DEX (parkour) or STR (sprinting) as it does CON. Likewise Speed should probably be a Strength derivative. So CON works for me, although again I haven't really considered it too much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darkdreamer
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    No, I agree that STR is too good. But I think overall it still works OK. Because +Attack is so easily achieved, no one really increases STR for the +Att (so is it really double dipping if you're only effectively getting one dip?) and a hit in AGE without stunts is possibly effectively a miss. It could be better, but imo it's not a complete misfire like F-AGE.
    Eh, you still needed to get at least some of your attack from somewhere other than just Foci; most people don't consider a 8+ on 3D6 really adequate for the long-term on routine bland opponents. They might not go up to a 5 for that reason, but I still think it made Strength too attractive up to 3.

    (Of course this only applied to Warriors since almost no one else could use Heavy Weapons).

    Leave a comment:


  • BTolputt
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to me, but I think 3 works better than 2. CON kind of works because snap shots would be almost pure hand eye coordination, snipe shots would be a lot of endurance -- holding breaths, completely still, etc.
    Still feels a bit of a stretch even with that explanation... cos really, those are simply elements of skill that anyone, hearty or weedy, can learn. Take a quick gander at the archers representing their nations in archery for instance - their imaginary CON stats are all over the place because endurance & vitality isn't really needed to be a good shot.

    I get wanting three attributes, as it makes the math nicer, but it simply doesn't make much sense.

    Originally posted by shonuff View Post
    You'd have to balance the foci but also the placement of each on primary/secondary. And I agree that AGE should have gone leveless- they're almost making it like that.
    Forgot about the primary/secondary placement, though frankly I'd just go with the standard trope of "Warrior gets the stat that helps up close and Rogue gets the stat that helps at range", as I don't see any real balance issues there. Mages didn't get DEX as a primary in the first place, so not an issue really.

    I understand the need for Green Ronin to give players their requisite levelling 'ding'. It's yet another RPG trope that people have come to expect. They just didn't need to make it the exact same "exponential rise to level 20" as D&D. For all it's flaws, the tier based system of Numenera / Cypher System has promise.

    Leave a comment:


  • shonuff
    replied
    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Originally posted by BTolputt View Post
    I like the idea of thirds too... but wedging CON into a ranged attack made no real sense to me and if one attack type is a two attributes, it simply feels right for the other to be as well. Not much more to it than that for me. I might play around with it a bit and see what comes from it.
    Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to me, but I think 3 works better than 2. CON kind of works because snap shots would be almost pure hand eye coordination, snipe shots would be a lot of endurance -- holding breaths, completely still, etc.

    What 'rebalancing' do you refer to here? I can't see much more than dividing deciding which of the two new attributes existing DEX foci/weapons fall under. Sure, there'll be the occasional spell, specialisation, etc that requires deciding which of the two DEX replacements to use as well, but it's not that large a task.

    Admittedly, I don't think the system can be fixed (whilst keeping the parts I really like) without a lot of work though. I think there is a very promising system in the mechanics of DAGE/FAGE... but to make them as good as they could be would require a version 2.0 that balances them from the bottom up (and dumps the weird need to keep 20 tiers of levelling up). My thoughts stem from that basis.
    You'd have to balance the foci but also the placement of each on primary/secondary. And I agree that AGE should have gone leveless- they're almost making it like that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X