Wouldnt it be better to limit the points which you can allocate per characteristic ?
This would lead to a real difference between "-", regular and "+" characteristics.
Lets say, you may max. put +10 on any 1 characteristic and Min. +0:
-: end up between 25 and 35
regular: end up between 30 and 40
+: end up between 35 and 45
What do you think ?
I don't like this kind of restriction on what kind of character you can play. What's the point in limiting characters this way?
In the current point buy system, you can overcome your penalty by investing heavily in that stat, if you want to. Your + stat still caps out at 45, so you've got more points to use elsewhere. It works fine as-is.
Yeah, I don't become a Feral Worlder specifically to be **** at Influence and really Stronk. I just want to be from a Feral world.
I'm all for STARTING the characteristics at different levels, but they should all have the same cap (assuming there is one).
Just state a maximum cap of, say, 60, and allow people to take as many +5 advances as they like to get there.
The original cap on point buy was 45, which was the highest result you can achieve when all the stats start at a base of 30 with the +/- in place.
If you using the proposed shift to a base of 25 it would make sense the cap was 40 as that's the highest the dice can achieve. What you are proposing though would be to make the stat buy work the same as the roll? Aka you can only place 20 points in each stat max during character creation.
In general, I dont like the 45 cap. I'd prefer to get +5 flat out of + and -5 for -
That is what you're getting. The cap of 45 in place is to limit how high you can pump up one stat, so RAW you can't start with 90 in one thing.
In general, I dont like the 45 cap. I'd prefer to get +5 flat out of + and -5 for -
Why don't you like it? I'm curious what your reasoning is. Obviously you feel it would make a better game, but I'd like to know how you feel it makes it better.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
Maybe 45 cap for + characteristics, 35 cap for - characteristics and 40 cap for everything else? Because a 50+ starting characteristic sounds ridiculously silly for a human character....
might be a solution.
But somehow it should differ.
Otherwise, if 2 characters have different +/-, they still may end up with the total same stats easily.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
I can understand that. Really, I think what you are proposing is more consistent with the other 40K rp games where you are capped at spending 20 points on a single characteristic and then modifiers for things like Homeworld are applied. I agree.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Overcoming your - stat has a pretty significant cost, and whether to invest in that is a player choice. If a player wants to, they can play the strongest Voidborn, or the most perceptive shrine worlder, and so on. Your proposal would remove that choice, rendering melee Voidborn or hive worlder psykers inherently less optimal to play. I don't think those kinds of hindrances should be baked into the rules.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Overcoming your - stat has a pretty significant cost, and whether to invest in that is a player choice. If a player wants to, they can play the strongest Voidborn, or the most perceptive shrine worlder, and so on. Your proposal would remove that choice, rendering melee Voidborn or hive worlder psykers inherently less optimal to play. I don't think those kinds of hindrances should be baked into the rules.
To play Devils Advocate, if we want that kind of freedom, why have Homeworld Characteristic mods at all? Your way I can play a willfull Hive Worlder but not a scrawny Feral Worlder. Why not do away with the mods entirely, beyond a narrative statement, and just let players assign their Characteristics according to their character concept.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Overcoming your - stat has a pretty significant cost, and whether to invest in that is a player choice. If a player wants to, they can play the strongest Voidborn, or the most perceptive shrine worlder, and so on. Your proposal would remove that choice, rendering melee Voidborn or hive worlder psykers inherently less optimal to play. I don't think those kinds of hindrances should be baked into the rules.
Yes, you have to invest more in A (-), but less in B (+), but if you want value X in both A and B, even if this X is 45, thats still the same in sum.
Maybe I am just confused, but it somehow does not feel right.
The only effect of +/- is, to force you to put indircetly point on "+" and "regular".
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Overcoming your - stat has a pretty significant cost, and whether to invest in that is a player choice. If a player wants to, they can play the strongest Voidborn, or the most perceptive shrine worlder, and so on. Your proposal would remove that choice, rendering melee Voidborn or hive worlder psykers inherently less optimal to play. I don't think those kinds of hindrances should be baked into the rules.
To play Devils Advocate, if we want that kind of freedom, why have Homeworld Characteristic mods at all? Your way I can play a willfull Hive Worlder but not a scrawny Feral Worlder. Why not do away with the mods entirely, beyond a narrative statement, and just let players assign their Characteristics according to their character concept.
Why have characteristic mods indeed.
Well, we do have them, and so to make them work without hindering player choice, leave the system as is. I don't see the loss of some sub-optimal builds (feral with Toughness less than 30) any great problem.
I think it would give players a higher variety and make strenghts point out better.
A feral worlder and a void born currently are both capped at 45. So there is no difference if both spent the max. points on lets say Toughness, even if one of them has + and the other -.
The + and - currently just dont feel like they have much impact.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Overcoming your - stat has a pretty significant cost, and whether to invest in that is a player choice. If a player wants to, they can play the strongest Voidborn, or the most perceptive shrine worlder, and so on. Your proposal would remove that choice, rendering melee Voidborn or hive worlder psykers inherently less optimal to play. I don't think those kinds of hindrances should be baked into the rules.
Yes, you have to invest more in A (-), but less in B (+), but if you want value X in both A and B, even if this X is 45, thats still the same in sum.
Maybe I am just confused, but it somehow does not feel right.
The only effect of +/- is, to force you to put indircetly point on "+" and "regular".
What? To get your + to 45 it only takes 10. - costs 20. Why is this an issue? A player can buff their - stat, but it will cost them.
In D&D, once you've allocated a certain number of points to a characteristic increasing it further means spending 2 points to only raise it by 1. Thus it is possible to have a very strong halfling or a very intelligent half-orc, but characteristic modifiers still matter as it costs a lot less to have a half-orc with 18 strength than a halfling.
In D&D, once you've allocated a certain number of points to a characteristic increasing it further means spending 2 points to only raise it by 1. Thus it is possible to have a very strong halfling or a very intelligent half-orc, but characteristic modifiers still matter as it costs a lot less to have a half-orc with 18 strength than a halfling.
Good point. Why not just make - stats cost double to raise and + stats cost the normal amount?
That is a terrible idea. Go make a character with 45 in their - stat and tell me they're not totally gimped.
I'm not suggesting you immediately apply the doubling, maybe after allocating 10 or so you start doubling, so neutral stats can reach 40 without penalty, "+" 45 and "-" 35.
I think cap at 40 in general and apply +5 for "+" and -5 for "-" afterwards is indeed a good idea.
Yes it is.
Why? What does that give us that the current system does not? And don't say "more variety" because that change would do the opposite by restricting players from certain kinds of characters (you'd never see a hiveborn psyker, for example).
For one thing it means you can't buy what you can't roll.
Maybe 45 cap for + characteristics, 35 cap for - characteristics and 40 cap for everything else? Because a 50+ starting characteristic sounds ridiculously silly for a human character....
This sounds reasonable to me.
I'd like to add that I'm also a fan of the Deathwatch system of having 100 points to allocate as you see fit to a maximum of +20 to each characteristic. I've used that in creating Dark Heresy characters, tending to give Adepts +20 Int, Psykers +20 Wp and so on; spreading the remaining 80 points around other characteristics.