Korwin said:

But you run into a problem with that kind of concept in Anima (or any level based game). 'Mastery' means nothing except contextually. A Master is a master because he's better than others (or even most). You can't be a Master in something in a level based game without being higher level than other characters. If anima were a pure point based system, that would be different, but there you go.

Now, if everyone from the Fighter to the Warlock are always putting max % into atk and def, then everyone is the same. Your concept becomes null, except when viewed against lower level NPCs. But you won't really be 'the best' as far as the other PCs and equal level NPCs are concerned because there is no way to escape the trap of everyone being equal.

As to what the GM uses, I have to disagree. Villains, main ones anyway, are almost always superior to PCs... hence the need for a team to beat them. Every Cloud has his Sephiroth that he can't take down by himself.

But I get what you mean, you want to be on the base line that has you equal to NPCs of your level. I'm with you on that. Which is why I point to the monsters and NPCs in the rule book. None of them that I can see use the full 50% of their DP on attack and defense. I may be wrong, but I don't think that I am. Certainly none of the ones I've done the math for are that high.

So, if your GM uses them as their basis, then putting 40% or 45% is sufficient which then frees points to buy thing that make your character mechanically interesting, or at least round out your skills.

So ultimately, the question is: where does your GM put the baseline? The 50% cap is something that, maybe every now and then a character hits, but not every level or even most (if ever). Of course if your GM prefers to put everything at the max, then you are screwed and you might as well do the same and lament the fact that your characters will be dull and kind of cookie cutter mechanically, at least for most levels of their existence. Talk to your GM and find out what their plan is and base your character math around that rather than some perceived necessity. I imagine that most GMs would want to have things on a relative keel rather than team pc or team monster having a huge advantage.

Lia Valenth said:

As a GM, I disagree with how difficult it is. It's really quite easy actually. You lower the cap. Since every class has a cap of some kind, you lower them proportionally.

Alternatively, you talk to your players and you get them to talk about their concepts and the niche they want to fulfill. Maybe Ted the swordsman won't mind if his atk is lower than bob the archer, so long as he has other interesting options to use in combats and the npcs are scaled accordingly.

Tywyll said:

I have previously explained the problems with this. You ignore many of them by ignoring some of the rules. This is fine, but it does not make it easier for people who use the official rules.

For example the required attack and defense ability to gain Ars Magnus, Martial Arts, etc. Do you make it a slower crawl to be able to get better forms of martial arts? not to mention the number of martial arts you can get is 1 per 40atk/def, does that change? Related is the point at which you obtain mastery of attack/defense. Do you keep the 200atk/def requirment to have mastery and just make it so you have to get them 5-ish levels later than normal? Or do you decrease the requirement of atk/def mastery? if so does that decrease the amount needed to obtain Mastery in skills etc?

This is just scratching the surface of what changes by modifying the maximum attack/defense allowed. Mind you it does not matter if you ignore some of the rules, but as a powergamer/GM I study the rules, and changing the maximum atk/def has a lot of ramifications on the official rules.

Lia Valenth said:

I think here is the difference in your views. Lia think, it is normal to get mastery early as possible etc., also the greatest development in the primary abilities and Tywyll doesn't think, that this should be normal.

In this point (as GM and as player), I agree with Tywyll. I don't think it is normal, to develop the maximum out of the primary abilities. And I get the feeling, if 100% would be allowed (instead of 50%/60%), the discussion would be, why to give points to secondary abilities (except to fulfill the requierments for some martial arts/ars magnus).

Like said, I agree with Tywyll: I don't think it should be normal to put everytime/mostly the maximum in primary abilities. I think the secondary abilities should get their share and mastery, ars magnus, more martial arts etc. could wait some levels. But this is my opinion and this is like I play my games and characters. Other people can have other opinions and they wouldn't be wrong.

It is the GMs Job to balance the enemies. If the players only use 40% or 50% of their DP for combat, instead of 50%/60%, than the GM shouldn't give them enemies with the maximum for combat (or should give the players some cool ways to defeat the enemy with their secondary abilities).

This isn't a problem with not having enough DP for secondary abilities. As long as you are not a mixed-archtype class (Warlock, Warrior Summoner, or Warrior Mentalist) you have enough DP for secondary abilities, and you gain 2 inherent bonuses and 5 +10's to secondaries every level. So this is not the problem.

The problem we have is the amount of Primary Combat spent in Attack and Defense vs the amount spent in Ki, Ars Magnus, etc. It is expected that you put 60% of your DP into the primary you chose, that's why they are primaries. How you split them in those primaries is what is up for debate, I believe. This is an RPG based around combat, I can say that because most of the books are based on combat rules and options, so being good in combat is important.

Within the world having a lot of combat ability is, or at least should be rare. But for adventurers, who spend most of their time in mortal peril, having to fight their way out, being good in combat is rather important to their survival.

I agree with Lia Valenth.

Just a note on this:
F3nr1s said:

Thats workable if all you players use the same Power Level. (ie. roughly the same % in primaries).

If they vary much, its getting hard to do. --> that is the reason we are talking about HR, to get all players and the GM on the same page.