Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

  1. #21
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,980

    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,980

    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Quote 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.

  3. #23
    UN Basic Recipient
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    10

    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,815

    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Quote 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.

  5. #25
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,980

    Re: Modern Age accuracy and fighting

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,815

    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.

  7. #27
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,980

    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.

  8. #28
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,815

    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.

  9. #29
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,980

    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.

  10. #30
    OPA Belta
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,815

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •