Determining Costs at Character Creation for a New System

[Souju]

I've recently decided to take a stab at creating/modding my own TTRPG system.
I know I know...big task. Especially (mostly) alone. Especially with a somewhat unique magic system.
It's mostly a cherry-picked mod of World of Darkness, Shadowrun, and Pathfinder 2e with a sprinkling of Ars Magica for the magic system.
But one thing I'm stuck on and I know not many people around me are familiar with...

...is how many points players should be allotted to spend on Attributes, Skills, Feats, and Arts (basically spells/techniques).

Since I'm mostly borrowing WoD's system, I've thought about using their totals, but I'm also doing something a bit different with Feats, making them more akin to Shadowrun's Traits and PF2e's feats. The general idea is players actually use points to purchase their class/profession, and can later on "promote" from a Training feat to a new class, or power up their existing one, effectively allowing multi-classing and prestige classing without too much headache. So the idea is you can start the game with the Fighter class and Training in culinary arts, and later spend the points to "promote" the Culinary Arts training skill to a Chef profession.

So I guess I'm looking to see if anyone has some wisdom with regards to how to go about this, point cost-wise.

[Telok]

Write out a dozen different starting characters. Reverse calculate to the points they need. Adjust and repeat.

Then build the most min/maxxed characters you can with those points. Then try to build the most 'one of everything' do it all character with those points. Adjust and repeat.

Build characters you'd never play. The social ones, the sneaky ones, the smart ones, the strong ones, the fast ones, the combat whores, the non-combat supports, the bricks, the kung fu genius, the animal loving "I have a tiger" one, truckers, snipers, healers, nukers. Try to combo everything.

Look at what you end up almost always choosing and what you almost never choose. Is it because of your personal preferences or are those choices always the best way to get there? Are there any characters you'd straight out ban at a live table? Anything you'd pull the player aside and tell them it can't work? Anything you end up asking "how should that work" (you're the designer you should be able to answer that with more than "make something up").

You should end up with at least one character for every attribute, skill, feat, and other starting option available. If your game has only elf/dwarf, strong/smart, punch/talk, and the number sets 1 & 2 and 0 & 3, then we'd better see at least 32 characters (if I did my mental math right).

[Anonymouswizard]

Because you've mentioned World of Darkness and Shadowrun I want to point out a bad choice both use: linear character creation, scaling advancement. That is in character creation that fourth point of Athletics costs as much as the first dot did, but afterwards it'll cost four times as much. Therefore characters who go broad on their capabilities at character creation will inevitably find themselves lagging behind those who specialised, as it's now cheaper to go from untrained to baseline competence than to go from competent to expert. Pick either linear or scaling costs and stick with them.

Otherwise yeah, start creating what you think are reasonable starting characters and reverse engineering how many points they need. Keep making characters and noting how many points they need until eventually you'll have something worth using in a playtest. Just keep a record so you can notice if certain archetypes use more or less points in certain areas.

One game of mine had to increase the number of starting talents from three to five just so mages could afford both membership in an order and a handful of spells. Honestly I might go back and change it so mundanes get a couple of extra stat points and three talents, while mages get two plus a handful of spells. Also rework the XP and stat generation systems so that both are linear, instead of scaling in different ways.

[Telok]

Pick either linear or scaling costs and stick with them.

Or you can split the difference. Make costs to buy up from zero a bit higher, put caps in the linear points part, then at yhe end a little bundle of "customization" xp that gets to live with the scaling cost.

Putting it at 2x or 3x to get the first dot in something incentivises spreading out with the linear points. Putting caps on that reduces a bit the "5s & 1s" where the characters are incompetent at everything but their one ultramax trick. Handing a bit of xp at the end lets them either buy that one or two things to max and gives them the option of turning a bunch of 1s into 2s or 3s.

Or you could go with templates and a set advancement schedule instead of linear or scaling costs. Or you could put in a "fail a roll to improve something" mechanic. Or all of them. Or you could ditch advancement completely. Or do something that's never been done before.

But first decide what the starter characters should look like and how they're built. Then you cam fool with later advancement.

[Souju]

This has been very helpful, thanks! I've...got work to do.

Because you've mentioned World of Darkness and Shadowrun I want to point out a bad choice both use: linear character creation, scaling advancement. That is in character creation that fourth point of Athletics costs as much as the first dot did, but afterwards it'll cost four times as much. Therefore characters who go broad on their capabilities at character creation will inevitably find themselves lagging behind those who specialised, as it's now cheaper to go from untrained to baseline competence than to go from competent to expert. Pick either linear or scaling costs and stick with them.

I actually had considered this, and made it so "buying a point" in something after character creation is based more on the amount spent in the category. Attributes and Skills mostly. I'm keeping Arts and Feats flat cost since a player will naturally have a lot of them and one Feat category is specifically allowed to be awarded without paying for it with exp: "Accomplishment" feats, basically an incentive or reward to do something interesting that reflect actions rather than just dumping exp. If you manage to convince the king to pay you 10x your expected fee to deal with the Dire Weasels infesting the local farms, you should get something that reflects that depending on how you went about it. This is in lieu of flat exp awards because it doesn't make too much sense to use the exp you gained from the aforementioned negotiation to make you better at shooting fireballs.

So the idea here is, hypothetically (as I mentioned I haven't hashed out exact numbers yet but here's the ballpark) after character creation ANY additional point in ANY category would be 100 exp. After that, if you want another point in the same category that point would cost 150 exp, while spending it in another area you haven't bought a point in yet would be 100 exp. Though I'm thinking of making it increase by values of 10 instead of 50 so it's a little easier to calculate.
Feats are more powerful, and even though 1 "feat point" would cost 100 exp flat across the board, you'd need more than 1 feat point to gain the feat. Some feats will be cheap, like ones that grant armor proficiency, while others will be more expensive, like new Professions.

Moreover I'm also strongly considering WoD's starting cap on skills and attributes, and definitely making a hard cap of 5 invested points, making it so you need feats to increase your power level.
The setting also has an "Ascension" system in place for if I absolutely mechanically NEED to break that 5 limit, but I'm setting my sights on just getting the basics right for now. Expansions for expansions, y'know.

[meschlum]

Math senses... tingling!

What you've got is a linear progression in the cost of adding 'points', and a cap. So you're still going to have an optimal investment.

The cost of boosting N times is N * 100 + N * 50 * (N - 1) / 2 = N (75 + 25 N) (you can replace the 100 and 50 in the equation with whatever values you end up choosing).

N = 1: 100
N = 2: 250
N = 3: 450
N = 4: 700
N = 5: 1000

Consider two attributes, and 6 'points' to be assigned, and you want to get to 5/5

If you assign 5/1, you need to boost one attribute 4 times, so cost is 700
If you assign 3/3, you need to boost two attributes 2 times each, so cost is 2 * 250 = 500

So you have a strong incentive to avoid specialization at character creation, at least among the attributes you're interested in. Any attributes that become interesting later on are punished for not having been invested in at character creation.

If there were a third attribute you suddenly decided you needed, it would cost an extra 1000 xp to raise to 5 (total cost 1700 or 1500). If you'd invested 2 'points' in it (starting with 2/2/2), you'd just need 1350 xp (meaning you get to 5/5/5 from 2/2/2 before someone who started at 5/1/0 gets to 5/5/4)


In the WW context, you start out very good in a narrow specialty, and then extend your skills as xp accumulate. Becoming competent at something new is easy.

In this context, you start out with poor ability in many trades, then refine them all towards a single goal. Becoming competent at something new is difficult.


If attributes at character creation define your absolute cap (so starting with Strength 3 means you can get to 8 but no higher, and starting with 0 means you can get to 5 at most), things get more complex. First of all, character creation is even more stressful. "What if a later supplement has an awesome skill I need to have Dexterity 6+ to use? I need to put a starting point there just in case..." Second, players optimizing to be 'good enough' will go for a wide spread, as it costs them less to get to the level they want (as above) - so in the early campaign they're stronger than others and then they are weaker (and if they estimate how long the game will last, they can be in the early part longer). Finally, players going all in for a narrow specialty will not want to pick up any side skills, as these do not contribute at the level their specialty does ("Do I learn to dance poorly for 100xp, or boost my strength to 8 sooner?")

It's not necessarily a bad approach (all approaches are bad from some perspective), but it's worth keeping in mind what the incentives look like.

[Souju]

Math senses... tingling!

What you've got is a linear progression in the cost of adding 'points', and a cap. So you're still going to have an optimal investment.

The cost of boosting N times is N * 100 + N * 50 * (N - 1) / 2 = N (75 + 25 N) (you can replace the 100 and 50 in the equation with whatever values you end up choosing).

N = 1: 100
N = 2: 250
N = 3: 450
N = 4: 700
N = 5: 1000

Consider two attributes, and 6 'points' to be assigned, and you want to get to 5/5

If you assign 5/1, you need to boost one attribute 4 times, so cost is 700
If you assign 3/3, you need to boost two attributes 2 times each, so cost is 2 * 250 = 500

So you have a strong incentive to avoid specialization at character creation, at least among the attributes you're interested in. Any attributes that become interesting later on are punished for not having been invested in at character creation.

If there were a third attribute you suddenly decided you needed, it would cost an extra 1000 xp to raise to 5 (total cost 1700 or 1500). If you'd invested 2 'points' in it (starting with 2/2/2), you'd just need 1350 xp (meaning you get to 5/5/5 from 2/2/2 before someone who started at 5/1/0 gets to 5/5/4)


In the WW context, you start out very good in a narrow specialty, and then extend your skills as xp accumulate. Becoming competent at something new is easy.

In this context, you start out with poor ability in many trades, then refine them all towards a single goal. Becoming competent at something new is difficult.


If attributes at character creation define your absolute cap (so starting with Strength 3 means you can get to 8 but no higher, and starting with 0 means you can get to 5 at most), things get more complex. First of all, character creation is even more stressful. "What if a later supplement has an awesome skill I need to have Dexterity 6+ to use? I need to put a starting point there just in case..." Second, players optimizing to be 'good enough' will go for a wide spread, as it costs them less to get to the level they want (as above) - so in the early campaign they're stronger than others and then they are weaker (and if they estimate how long the game will last, they can be in the early part longer). Finally, players going all in for a narrow specialty will not want to pick up any side skills, as these do not contribute at the level their specialty does ("Do I learn to dance poorly for 100xp, or boost my strength to 8 sooner?")

It's not necessarily a bad approach (all approaches are bad from some perspective), but it's worth keeping in mind what the incentives look like.

Well, a few notes here:
1) I'm going to be hard-capping this current version of the game at 5 points for every skill/attribute (except, theoretically, Arts (spells) since their focus is so narrow and are the main way of expanding the character's "power") and have the default cap for spending actual attribute points given at the beginning to 4. In fact I'm probably going to be using WoD's 3/5/7 attribute expenditure for this purpose (so each character would have their "7" choice pretty well rounded, being able to take 1 skill to 4 and the others to 3, since all attributes per WoD start at 1)

2) "Side skills" include feats, which as they stand augment a certain number of skills and give you a special benefit. For example, the "Seamanship" Training feat gives you a point in Lore and Survival, and allows you to pilot aquatic vehicles. It'd be more expensive than just paying for Lore and Survival individually, but would allow you to go above the 3 or 4 soft cap AND give you access to a proficiency

3) Attributes are NEVER going to determine prerequisites. Mostly because I think that's a bit silly. Part of the reason I'm using WoD as a base is in THEORY you can apply different attributes to different skills as the situation arises. Survival, for example, I have classed as using both Constitution (for being able to endure heat and cold as well as stomach uncooked food) and Wisdom (for finding tracks, making shelter, that sort of thing). There will be and are already feats that require skills at certain levels, but I've also included a retraining system for feats and skills (basically how "promotion" from Training to Profession (class) works) so if a theoretical really cool supplement comes in that requires really high skills you might not have, it WILL be possible to train yourself into it through a variety of mechanisms without accumulating a vast amount of extra EXP. Of course since attributes are never prerequisites, this also means that attributes can't be retrained. It's still kinda possible to screw yourself over in this regard, but since everyone would be working with the same number of baseline points, there'd need to be a fundamental disconnect between what the character is doing and what actually appears. I'm making effort to avoid "Underwater Basket Weaving" scenarios, though, so even the most niche feats will give you SOMETHING.

[Pauly]

The other way of dealing with it is to have players roll randomly to create their characters.
A very good on line example for the Conan game is here: https://conan.modiphiusapps.hostinguk.org/index.html

The advantage is that players can’t cherry pick what skills/abilities they’ll have.
The disadvantage is that players can’t cherry pick what skills/abilities they’ll have.

I personally find it much more fun to play procedurally generated characters than to come in with a prepared plan for character creation and progression. Others may feel differently.

[Souju]

The other way of dealing with it is to have players roll randomly to create their characters.
A very good on line example for the Conan game is here: https://conan.modiphiusapps.hostinguk.org/index.html

The advantage is that players can’t cherry pick what skills/abilities they’ll have.
The disadvantage is that players can’t cherry pick what skills/abilities they’ll have.

I personally find it much more fun to play procedurally generated characters than to come in with a prepared plan for character creation and progression. Others may feel differently.

Sadly this doesn't actually address the issue I'm having.

I need to determine how much these things actually cost before I can even conceive of actual randomly generated characters, because there needs to be a semblance of balance, and I'd need to set the parameters anyway before doing this.

Randomly generating characters is kind of a Stage 3 or 4 development thing, whereas what I'm looking at a stage 2 thing: I have all the options I want players to be able to make use of more or less laid out, I'm just missing the "How many resources do these actually cost" part.

[Quertus]

I need to determine how much these things actually cost before I can even conceive of actual randomly generated characters, because there needs to be a semblance of balance,

Well, that’s an assumption, so you should question it. Do you need a semblance of balance? I mean, you picked WoD as one of your bases, so I’d assume the answer is “no” (and your other sources of inspiration aren’t exactly paragons of balance, either).

That said, I’d wager Playgrounders care more about the order in which you make purchases being balanced than two feats is worth one stat point balance being correct, but I could be mistaken.

[Telok]

I say again; step one is to make a big pile of what you think starter characters should look like first, then look at the pricing.

I think though that DtF40k7e actually did sort of what you're doing. Take WoD looking character sheets married to D&D style feats.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, that’s an assumption, so you should question it. Do you need a semblance of balance? I mean, you picked WoD as one of your bases, so I’d assume the answer is “no” (and your other sources of inspiration aren’t exactly paragons of balance, either).

Both CofD2e and WoD5 are much better at the balance deal. Still not perfect,but at least in a way that's mostly inevitable in a point buy system (CofD2e even has Sanctity of XP for Merits, although not Morality meters or Willpower).

That said, I’d wager Playgrounders care more about the order in which you make purchases being balanced than two feats is worth one stat point balance being correct, but I could be mistaken.

Honestly if there's an opportunity for silly combos the Playground will love it.

And specific point costs can be tweaked down the line to fix things. Especially seeing as strict balance isn't always desirable.

[Pauly]

Sadly this doesn't actually address the issue I'm having.

I need to determine how much these things actually cost before I can even conceive of actual randomly generated characters, because there needs to be a semblance of balance, and I'd need to set the parameters anyway before doing this.

Randomly generating characters is kind of a Stage 3 or 4 development thing, whereas what I'm looking at a stage 2 thing: I have all the options I want players to be able to make use of more or less laid out, I'm just missing the "How many resources do these actually cost" part.

My experience with randomly generated characters is that balance comes from a limited ability to optimize. As long as every character gets the same number of rolls on the same tables balance flows from that.
Where imbalances flow is things like old school D&D rolling for attributes, but if you take a more modern approach of every character starts at 8 in every ability then roll 10 times and each time you get [N] stat number [N] is increased by +2, then you get more balanced outcomes.
The same goes for feats and skills. As long as each character gets the same number of skills and feats then balance should flow from that as long as the feats and skills are of roughly comparable value.

[Souju]

Where imbalances flow is things like old school D&D rolling for attributes, but if you take a more modern approach of every character starts at 8 in every ability then roll 10 times and each time you get [N] stat number [N] is increased by +2, then you get more balanced outcomes.
The same goes for feats and skills. As long as each character gets the same number of skills and feats then balance should flow from that as long as the feats and skills are of roughly comparable value.

I'm not too worried about this since none of the stats are going to be randomly generated.

I guess the issue is more one of futureproofing for when the game is actually played.

Less about "balancing around what everyone can do" and more about balancing just HOW MUCH a character at creation is capable of. If I give too many points right away, then the players will have dice pools so large it becomes impractical to roll them normally in person, and the enemies they face will have to have an equally absurd power curve.

If I don't give enough, then everyone is weak and noodley and suffers from a problem I absolutely dread: "The Commoner vs. House Cat" problem where a player can get instantly destroyed by something that has no business doing so.

And even though I'm using combat allusions above, the problem applies equally to skill checks. Like if your party is 3 rogues and a mage, if you're not generous enough with points the odds of one of them putting a point into Athletics goes down.


So one of my other friends had another suggestion: Map out what the attributes DO (what skills they're tied to) and assign points to it. If it's super important then that thing gets more points.

Currently, CON has the lowest "score" as its only tied to Wounds (mechanic) and Survival (skill)

[Telok]

Currently, CON has the lowest "score" as its only tied to Wounds (mechanic) and Survival (skill)

Map the athletics skill to it. You can set a few specific actions to str+ath but default the athletics skill to con. Nearly everything athletic but instant/immediate actions should be con based.

Second, add another resource or health track to con and fit either the new mechanic or the wounds to span two attributes (willpower id a good candidate if you use that as an attribute). This can be a fatigue meter, stun limit, or a pool of effort dice. Have ways to interact with them beyond combat, and don't let physical combat be the primary interaction with it. A fatigue meter or effort dice pool can be used to power special abilities, fatigue could be used to represent or track disease & poison effects, efgort dice could be that heroic padding, stun limits could be the primary health track for low damage unarmed fist fights & magic effects. As a bonus it gives the system a way to KO people before outright killing them, since most people get incapacitated befoe they just fall over dead.

[Thrawn4]

...is how many points players should be allotted to spend on Attributes, Skills, Feats, and Arts (basically spells/techniques).

My two cents:
1. Are the attributes similarly useful? If not, you have to redesign them or give them different base costs. Same goes for skills and so on.
2. Like Telok said, create some starting characters and calculate the costs.
3. Playtest for balance details.

[Anonymouswizard]

My two cents:
1. Are the attributes similarly useful? If not, you have to redesign them or give them different base costs. Same goes for skills and so on.

Ye olde GURPSe problems, IQ is worth like three times as much as any other stat. Load up on a bunch of one point skills and pump that baby as high as it goes!

Well, okay, most groups can also afford a DX monkey. But IME IQ was where it's at for most characters. Honestly my suggestion is actually to begin at the physical/mental/social trio and then combine and split as required for the intended gameplay. I find that a lot of the time not only is it not worth separating Strength and Toughness into their own stats, but even if you did anybody who invests in one probably wants the other. I'm honestly not convinced that WotC era D&D wouldn't be better off combining them into a Physique stat that gives both +melee and +hp (and most 5e Strength saves are probably fine as Constitution saves).

[Thrawn4]

I find that a lot of the time not only is it not worth separating Strength and Toughness into their own stats, but even if you did anybody who invests in one probably wants the other.

Totally agree. Easier to come up with a perk for those rare cases where it matters.

Also, it heavily depends on the setting which thing is useful.

[Telok]

the other. I'm honestly not convinced that WotC era D&D wouldn't be better off combining them into a Physique stat that gives both +melee and +hp

Body, mind, soul, scaled -1 to +5, where each gets one positive trait that gets expertise and one negative trait that doesn't get prof bonus on rolls. Then replace all skills with Action!, Talk!, Know!, Theive!, and Sense!, plus same thing with one expertise and one no bonus. Then kill everything that gives bonus numbers or dice to the checks. <opinion>D&D stats and skills are really bloated and overlapping for what they really do at the level of granulatity that they have.</opinion>

[Anonymouswizard]

Totally agree. Easier to come up with a perk for those rare cases where it matters.

Also, it heavily depends on the setting which thing is useful.

It can work, Chronicles of Darkness is very much built around the idea of Force/Finesse/Resistance in how it's stats work, as are the various Storypath games. Interestingly CofD actually puts a couple of limits on the power of Dexterity that even D&D doesn't these days (reduced impact on defence, getting rid of that bloody 'finesse weapon' idea).

But generally they're not worth keeping separate. Even WW games would be fine going to P/M/S stats.

Body, mind, soul, scaled -1 to +5, where each gets one positive trait that gets expertise and one negative trait that doesn't get prof bonus on rolls. Then replace all skills with Action!, Talk!, Know!, Theive!, and Sense!, plus same thing with one expertise and one no bonus. Then kill everything that gives bonus numbers or dice to the checks. <opinion>D&D stats and skills are really bloated and overlapping for what they really do at the level of granulatity that they have.</opinion>

Sounds like a fine game. Not what I like, and not what D&D is trying to be, but it would probably be fun to play.

Me, I'm perfectly fine with 30-40 different skills in a game.

[Souju]

My two cents:
1. Are the attributes similarly useful? If not, you have to redesign them or give them different base costs. Same goes for skills and so on.

With the exception of CON (Wounds), Willpower (Magic Offense), and Presence (Magic Defense) every single Attribute has the same basic function of keying to a specific skill.

Map the athletics skill to it. You can set a few specific actions to str+ath but default the athletics skill to con. Nearly everything athletic but instant/immediate actions should be con based.

This is actually already on the list, I just forgot to put it on the checklist when I was counting points lol.

Though it still doesn't completely solve the problem as even at 4 points instead of 3, it's the lowest "value".

I find that a lot of the time not only is it not worth separating Strength and Toughness into their own stats, but even if you did anybody who invests in one probably wants the other.

If Strength and Toughness govern the same things, then it becomes impossible to have a glass cannon type character who's really good at hitting hard but folds like wet tissue paper. It also becomes a nightmare for enemy scaling since every single enemy you face that's good at beating your face in will ALSO have ludicrous HP and be able to chase you down. This ain't true in real life, as brawn=/=endurance. The guy who can run a marathon isn't going to be bench pressing his couch, and the guy bench pressing his couch likely won't be running a marathon.

These stats are separate in so many systems even if it means CON/VIT/whatever only do 1 thing because that one thing is super important. Even without being tied into STR, CON has always been the de facto secondary or tertiary stat for every single D&D character for decades.

And I've definitely played games that tried to merge STR and CON into a single stat and it...didn't work out too well. It usually ends with the tanks dealing more damage than anyone else in the party because they only have 1 stat dependency while every other class in the game *still* needs to put points into this stat so they don't die, because every grunt enemy in the game is going to have points in this stat. This is kinda why Pokemon split Special into two different stats after gen 1.

Moreover it's too beneficial. It's now you get Muscle Mages. Which sounds cool, but really just makes character speciation bland beyond belief.

[Thrawn4]

With the exception of CON (Wounds), Willpower (Magic Offense), and Presence (Magic Defense) every single Attribute has the same basic function of keying to a specific skill.

That's not really an answer though. Is it hard for you to pick one over the other, because they are all equally benefitial?

These stats are separate in so many systems even if it means CON/VIT/whatever only do 1 thing because that one thing is super important.

So, is CON super important? As important as the other attributes?

[MrStabby]

I would start by looking at your implicit assumptions and making them explicit.

Some of these might be very general - like the balance between social elements and combat elements in a game. How much time is spent on each, what are the stakes of each, how much can character build choces impact the outcome of each.

Others might be very specific - its hard to assess the importance/value of an ability that does extra damage to oozes without knowing the number of oozes in a game.


I find for example in most D&D games there is a real difference in the value of proficiencies - perveption vs proficiency in using land vehicles for example. In some campaigns proficiency might not be the more useful option, and having them have the same "cost" may be implicitly assuming a certain type of game where they are expected to have the same worth.

Its also worth considering which require other resources and not only the opportunity cost for the ability but aso for the resource it consumes. A niche ability as a spell that uses the same magic resource as other spells might be easy to underrate - if you don't use it you have that other resource left over. On the other hand a more generic ability that uses the resource might be overrated as you will find yourself wanting to run down that resource pool.



Another thing I would look to do is to represent what you think is and should be a hierarchy of effectiveness of similar abilities. Every character should have something cool they can do and ensuring its realy hard to step on the toes of the core concept of a different character is a good thing to factor into pricing. If everyone can be a generalist as geting most of the capabiliy of a specialist is very cheap, then you can end up with some rather homogenous characters. When you do examine the types of character your system can make, make sure the gaps are big enough between them tha you can feel the difference - and make the gaps real. For example if the damage of two weapon fighitng is the same as using a greatsword and they both stop you using a shield and there is nothing to really break the symmetry, then two superficially different characters could feel very much the same.

[Easy e]

The most important thing to know is this:

- No matter what system you put together, a player will break it.

The next most important thing is:

- The more complicated the system, the easier it is to break.

Also, keep in mind:

- Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Finally:

- Perfect balance is a unicorn

[Souju]

That's not really an answer though. Is it hard for you to pick one over the other, because they are all equally benefitial?


So, is CON super important? As important as the other attributes?

See, that's the thing I'm not sure about.

When it comes to combat, more HP/Wounds is always good. But in this system there's a lot of magic floating around so being able to absorb damage might not be as important as being able to resist it.

So if I give too much weight to HP/Wounds then it could end up being a dead stat once people realize you can end up dealing SO much damage you bypass the need for larger HP pools.

Having 5 mitigation and 1 HP is usually better than having 1 mitigation and 5 HP, because that mitigation is checked every time you take an attack whereas each HP lost isn't regained on the next turn. And since this system will be working on a "check all damage vs. resists" mechanic, that's probably what's going to end up happening.

So I basically need to see about CON doing something else in addition to providing health, especially since the resistance stats already do other things. So far that's just survival.

The most important thing to know is this:

- No matter what system you put together, a player will break it.

The next most important thing is:

- The more complicated the system, the easier it is to break.

Also, keep in mind:

- Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Finally:

- Perfect balance is a unicorn

I'm not overly concerned about true balance down the road. I actually expect certain things to get broken.

But there's a fair bit of difference between everyone starting on equal footing and one player being able to replicate a rocket launcher in terms of damage at character creation while another can barely make cup noodles despite investing in Craft (this was a thing in certain editions of Shadowrun, one of the primary inspirations for this system).

All that aside, here's a tentative look at what I'm working at. It's VERY messy right now and this isn't the only document pertaining to it (lore is obviously left out aside from some race stuff since this is the mechanics document)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[Telok]

Looks reasonable. I had questions about some of the race arts but the glossary answered those. Language & clarity stuff, yeah. Thats normal at this point.

Looking at your Con concern you can base the fatigue limit & recovery time on it. Giving say, unarmed brawling attacks, attacks easy access to inflicting fatigue helps make basic bar fights much less lethal and gives Con a boost. Likewise add stuff letting you resist stun/fatigue with Con rolls works too. Being fairly generous with low power diseases/poisons that Con resists helps. You also mentioned having both resistance/mitigation & hp, so you could partially base or cap resistance/mitigation off Con.

It'll still be a mostly passive stat, but more important if it comes up a lot or is involved in more stuff.

Word of warning, there's a tendency to make willpower & dexterity god stats through magic power/resist & social skill resists & to-hit/dodge. Just something to be aware of. Basing things like figured stats (hp, initative bonus/pool, etc.) off a combination of stats can help. Keep an eye out for things like making a will/dex + magic/acrobat character that goes first always, is near unhittable, and has a massive magic attack.

[Souju]

Word of warning, there's a tendency to make willpower & dexterity god stats through magic power/resist & social skill resists & to-hit/dodge. Just something to be aware of. Basing things like figured stats (hp, initative bonus/pool, etc.) off a combination of stats can help. Keep an eye out for things like making a will/dex + magic/acrobat character that goes first always, is near unhittable, and has a massive magic attack.

Thanks for the feedback.

Willpower is almost exclusively a magic stat, only getting subbed in if an Art or feat specifically allows it to do so. It's why I'm more bothered about CON being weak than Willpower: Willpower is literally *the* magic stat, in a setting where all playable characters will have access to magic (you can choose to not use it, but the point is anyone can *access* it)

There's a resistance stat in each of the 3 main fields (DEX/CON for physical, Wisdom for mental, and Presence for social) so it'll be hard for any character to be completely good at everything via attributes, maybe two or three things max since I'm DEFINITELY using WoD's Attribute allottment. (3/5/7)

[Thrawn4]

Thanks for the feedback.

Willpower is almost exclusively a magic stat, only getting subbed in if an Art or feat specifically allows it to do so. It's why I'm more bothered about CON being weak than Willpower: Willpower is literally *the* magic stat, in a setting where all playable characters will have access to magic (you can choose to not use it, but the point is anyone can *access* it)

There's a resistance stat in each of the 3 main fields (DEX/CON for physical, Wisdom for mental, and Presence for social) so it'll be hard for any character to be completely good at everything via attributes, maybe two or three things max since I'm DEFINITELY using WoD's Attribute allottment. (3/5/7)

Can you make Con more viable? Maybe casting spells takes a lot of stamina or has some side effects. In some stories mages are panting and sweating because of the physical strain. Or maybe you can tap into your life energy as an additional source of power. Or it can be used as resistance for certain physical spells.

Or just make it cheaper.

[Telok]

Willpower is almost exclusively a magic stat, only getting subbed in if an Art or feat specifically allows it to do so.

That's actually an issue in Dungeons the Dragoning 40k 7e. Willpower is the non-physical defense stat versus magic, all fear & snapping out of it, insanity (both preventing it & suppressing results of any failures), and some social actions, plus it's the base of two magic schools, and several archetype's are partially powered off it. My houserules went through a bunch of stuff and moved it off willpower, especially lots of magic resists, direct social defense, and snapping out of fear that moved into the wisdom & composure stats.

[Souju]

Long time no see! been tweaking stuff...there have been some updates to the document I linked above. Not a lot, but some. Still stuck on iron clad costs, and the Gift and Art lists are...a chore. Once you've got the basic fireball and enhancing yourself Arts covered it becomes a lot of phrasing things.

Can you make Con more viable? Maybe casting spells takes a lot of stamina or has some side effects. In some stories mages are panting and sweating because of the physical strain. Or maybe you can tap into your life energy as an additional source of power. Or it can be used as resistance for certain physical spells.

I'm a bit iffy on doing this because there's already a pretty explicit mechanic: If you reach 0 AL (magic/mana), you immediately fall unconscious. And if you're in an area rich in AL (magic/mana) that is a different resonance from your own, you get aura sickness.

Damaging your CON to get more AL seems like something a feat (now called "Gifts") would accomplish rather than a core feature of the stat.

That's actually an issue in Dungeons the Dragoning 40k 7e. Willpower is the non-physical defense stat versus magic, all fear & snapping out of it, insanity (both preventing it & suppressing results of any failures), and some social actions, plus it's the base of two magic schools, and several archetype's are partially powered off it. My houserules went through a bunch of stuff and moved it off willpower, especially lots of magic resists, direct social defense, and snapping out of fear that moved into the wisdom & composure stats.

Yeah that's a big reason why I made sure to have 9 total stats and made sure they all did something. In your example, "fear" might be handled by Willpower OR it can be handled with Presence. Is your mind super sharp or are you super composed?

Just...still working out the kinks.