Feat chains rob people.

[RandomCasualty]

1083381477[/unixtime]]

And as I said before, character creation wasn't great in WW, but the character advancement system was good.

No it wasn't. The powers granted by each new dot of super power grew faster than the cost. While it took a larger investment to get each new dot of discipline (or gift, or sphere, or whatever the crap), each new dot also gave a greater return.

Eh... not necessarily, the disciplines weren't always that great and most of them required you have skills and attributes to use them.

So it wasn't like you spent points on your discipline and that was it, if you didn't have a good amount in the requisite attributes and skills, you were going to suck.

[Username17]

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Mind clarifying that a bit? I don't know white wolf too well . . .

[RandomCasualty]

White wolf works like this...

First you have a certain rank in each skill for every rank point you get an additional d10 to roll. If you roll >= than the difficulty 2-10, you get a success. The more successes the better. Unlike D&D, 3 ranks in a WW skill is alot. It's basically passable in the game world.

Basically you have a set number of exp points that you use to buy stuff. Different things cost different amounts.

To increase a skill one point, you pay your current rank in the skill x 2 for XP.

To increase an attribute you pay your current rank x 4.

For a vampiric discipline you pay your current rank x 7.

For a mage sphere, you pay your current rank x 8.

Now, I may have my multipliers off a bit, but that's the basic idea of the system. I'm not really saying that white wolf is perfectly balanced, I'm just saying that the idea of scaling costs is a great one to get people to encourage people to diversify.

Basically if I have 8 experience as a rogue. And I have 4 ranks in stealth, and 1 rank in poltics. I can improve my politics to 3 for 6 points, or I can improve my stealth to 5 for the full 8 points. Alternately, I could improve 4 rank 1 skills to rank 2.

In D&D every rank of hide is the same cost, every extra BaB bonus to attack is the same cost. Basically if we're ever to encourage diversity, we have to make people at high levels eventually forced with the decision to invest everything in their specialty and basically get ripped off, or improve some lesser skills for a cheap cost.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

A system like that might work, if the higher ranks are neither too costly nor too cheap for what they give.

Not sure about that in white wolf, as I am ignorant abot most gaming systems. However, that does sound a bit interesting on the surface.

[RandomCasualty]

1083526623[/unixtime]]A system like that might work, if the higher ranks are neither too costly nor too cheap for what they give.

Yeah, that's the trick to it.. but I think that's the paradigm we should be using.

I'm not coming here claiming that white wolf is the god of all gaming systems, because it's not... it's got lots of problems of its own, but the advancement paradigm is a good one.

[Username17]

The part that's missing from this equation is:

In White Wolf, a level 1 ability might make you kind of hard to see. A level 4 ability might... start the entire city rioting against a single target of your choice. Those are real examples, by the way.

The conceptual problem here, of course, is that the higher costs don't mean anything unless a character can afford something small while being unable to afford a larger thing. And if that's the case, the character is in a situation where instantaneously the characetr who is saving up for the next ability is instantaneously inferior in all ways to the character who just spent points as they came.

Problem? You bet!

The whole point of a level based system is that you all advance when you all advance. The whole point of a point based system is that everyone has the same number of points.

So if you are ever in a situation in which one person advances and another is saving - you aren't fulfilling the mandates of either point based or level based systems.

You are defintiionally in unbalanced territory - one person is just like another except that he has addiitonal abilities - however small - and the other guy doesn't have anything.

Scaling prices doesn't help. Minimum secondary expenditures, or even simply separate lumps of points can, however.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083528411[/unixtime]]
So if you are ever in a situation in which one person advances and another is saving - you aren't fulfilling the mandates of either point based or level based systems.

Eh... I dunno about that one. Theoretically you're correct.

I don't think the balance aspects of saving versus spending would necessarily be that bad in practice. And then when the other guy spent his points finally he'd be a little bit ahead probably since what he was saving for was probably worth something.

I dont' think in play it would be that bad, and it'd encourage people to diversify.

Beacuse basically so long as it's just as easy for me to cast spells than do anything else, I'm going to always learn to cast spells better, just because I can't cast a spell and swing a sword.

Your only option other than a system like this is to allow a full attack action to let you attack, cast a divine spell, and cast an arcane spell.

This way, a fighter/cleric would gain from his fighting and casting simultaneously.

For multiclassing to be worthwhile it has to be cheaper to be a mediocre fighter and mediocre cleric than a full cleric or you have to be able to be both a mediocre fighter and a mediocre cleric at the same time.

The main limitation that I can only attack or cast a spell screws the caster/fighter. It always makes paying equal costs for fighting and casting ability relatively pointless, because I really can't do both... not at the same time anyway.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

It's true, White Wolf rewards you for min-maxing up front and diversifying as you go. There's a damned good reason why the only people in a given Vampire game with multiple diciplines with four or more dots were Elders, it's because they were made using the Elysium rules, and thus had assloads of Discipline dots, Freebie points, and had access to the totally broken Age background.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone make it higher than level three or four in a discipline during play, it just costs too damned much, you won't earn that XP in any reasonable period of time.

-Desdan

[Username17]

I don't think the balance aspects of saving versus spending would necessarily be that bad in practice. And then when the other guy spent his points finally he'd be a little bit ahead probably since what he was saving for was probably worth something.

That's the worst idea ever.

It rewards inorganic characters. If I can make an 8th level character straight, I'll just put all my points in a pile, since apparently that is "worth something" over spending points as you go.

The organic character, OTOH, will have bought more things - because right now he has the choice of getting nothing or something.

Players should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to "save points towards a bigger purchase". One way or the other, it breaks every single system ever made.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083535207[/unixtime]]
I don't think I've ever seen anyone make it higher than level three or four in a discipline during play, it just costs too damned much, you won't earn that XP in any reasonable period of time.

Right. And that's my point.

In practice, the white wolf system of advancement does encourage diversification, and thus far it's one of the only systems I've seen that actually does that in a real gaming environment. This is why I bring it up.

If we want to kill the choke hold specialists have on D&D we basically have to start punishing specialization as WW does.

[Username17]

In practice, the white wolf system of advancement does encourage diversification, and thus far it's one of the only systems I've seen that actually does that in a real gaming environment.

What about D&D?

Wizards diversify - they get skills and hit points and saves in addition to just increasing their magical powers.

People specialize as much as they can, but the hard coded diversification minimums actually do encourage a level of diversification which far outstrips anything you ever saw in a min/maxxed White Wolf game.

The only way White Wolf encourages diversification is by the fact that getting the next large influx of power from taking the next level of Thaumaturgy could quite likely take longer to accumulate the XP than the game is actually going to last. It's not that you wouldn't be better off doing that - it's that the eventual payoff is never going to come because the game is going to end.

And that's terrible game design. Anything which scales PC power by the number of game sessions they think the campaign is going to last is bad.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083567740[/unixtime]]
What about D&D?

Wizards diversify - they get skills and hit points and saves in addition to just increasing their magical powers.

Yes, D&D hands out hit points and saves with each level. Skills are really not diversification because you end up taking the same skills ever level, thanks to the linear skill system. Having 20 ranks in concentration and 20 ranks in knowledge(arcana) isn't really diversification, it's just more specialization. It's just that D&D characters specialize in multiple areas at once.

In D&D a guy with 20 ranks in one skill is way better than someone with 5 ranks in 4 skills. The skill system should take that into consideration and make skill specialization more difficult. Right now, there's simply no incentive to take different skills than the ones you started taking at 1st level, because mid to low skill ranks just don't do anything.

When is the last time you ended up with a fighter with some crossclass ranks in diplomacy or a rogue with knowledge(arcana)? Pretty much never, because 5-6 ranks in these skills do absolutely nothing for the character, because the game is designed for pure specialists. In white wolf we see characters with varied skills all the time, because the system encourages characters generalizing instead of specializing.

Now for us to encourage people to take skills that aren't what they took at first level, we need to provide some kind of incentive such that spending points on new skills gives you an equal benefit to spending points to improve the stuff you already have. The only way to adequately do that is a sliding scale. Hide 21 should be worth more than getting the first rank in craft (armorer). SO long as they're equal, there's no reason to ever do anything other than spend points on the same skills every level.

[Username17]

It's just that D&D characters specialize in multiple areas at once.

That is diversification. That's what diversification means. That's more diversifcation than you see in Vampire, and an astoundingly lot more diversification than you see in Mage.

Specializing in more than one thing is the precise meaning of diversification. And if you don't accept that, there is no possibility of even having a conversation.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083600745[/unixtime]]
That is diversification. That's what diversification means. That's more diversifcation than you see in Vampire, and an astoundingly lot more diversification than you see in Mage.

Specializing in more than one thing is the precise meaning of diversification. And if you don't accept that, there is no possibility of even having a conversation.

No diversification is having some skills that are mediocre, some poor ones and some that you're good at.

Take the average college student.

They'll have small numbers of ranks in knowledge- history, mathematics, maybe some writing ability, and some sciences, maybe even some knowledge of art. And then they have their major which they focus more strongly. In some cases they also minor in something giving a medium focus.

And this is just a person's class studies, they have hobbies outside of their student life. they may also have skills in playing sports, or fixing cars, or whatever. And they're all at different levels depending on effort put in. And sometimes you start picking up new skills, and learning the basics of these new skills really doesn't detract much on mastering your existing skills.

D&D does this kind of thing poorly. Because spending points elsewhere is generally a waste of your time. What I'm saying is it should be ok for a high level fighter to spend some points on spellcraft or diplomacy and not get hosed for it. In fact a lot of characters should have diplomacy at high levels.

The problem with D&D is it encourages binary skills, you're either a master of something or you don't bother with it. In white wolf this isnt' so. You see characters with lots of 1 and 2 dot skills, more like an organic person would have. Because they're cheaper.

[Username17]

No diversification is having some skills that are mediocre, some poor ones and some that you're good at.

What?

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

di·ver·si·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vûrs-f, d-)
v. di·ver·si·fied, di·ver·si·fy·ing, di·ver·si·fies
v. tr.

1.
1. To give variety to; vary: diversify a menu.
2. To extend (business activities) into disparate fields.

Diversification means, in this case, that you are extended into more than one field. In what way does this imply that you aren't necessarily very good in one or more of them?

Even if that were true, which it isn't, the Wizard still meets your bizzare and obtuse requirements to count as diversified. He gains ability to fight with weapons as he goes up in level. Not very much, but he does have it - both BAB and weapon proficiencies. There are wizards out there who have never used this particular piece of diversification - just as there are White Wolf characters who have never used their single mandated dot in Manipulation.

Nevertheless, it is there. What more do you want?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083648562[/unixtime]]
Nevertheless, it is there. What more do you want?

Well, skill diversification for one.

I'm totally ok with wizards having no combat ability at all actually, but it does rather offend me when their skills consist of nothing buy 6 skills at max ranks. That's not how things work. It's a lot harder to get better at something once you're already very good at it than it is to pick up the basics.

I like the WW system because it models this alot better IMO.

Real characters aren't the super focused specialists D&D wants them to be. Even superheroes don't do that. Superman knows how to play sports, basic history, math and all sorts of other stuff. He doesn't just learn flying and mastering his powers.

And this is fundamentally what I don't like. We don't see those little minor skills that separate real characters and personalities from merely peices on a game table.

[Username17]

In White Wolf people don't buy skills at all. Magic powers are better deals than skills are - so people buy those instead.

Your complaint here seems totally irrational. And completely contradictory.

Some players don't want one, some players just want to play the simple swordswinger. they want to attack things with their weapon and they want to kill stuff with their weapon. They want to do that and be good at it. That's it.

Real characters aren't the super focused specialists D&D wants them to be. Even superheroes don't do that.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083649638[/unixtime]]
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Well, yes you can actually.

Note I'm not saying you should force people to diversify, not in the sense that everyone must take skill X. If all you wanna do is swing a sword, then you can spend ALL your points on that. Ultimately you'll be getting ripped off doing it, due to the fact that each level fo skill is progressively harder to attain, but if you really wanna do taht you can.

And under a diminishing returns skill system, this isn't unbalanced either.

Basically all players are encouraged to specialize based on the nature of the game: You're a bunch of people working together. Your fighter doens't need to know how to heal people, he lets the cleric do it.

To get people to diversify at all, we have to give them incentives. The only incentive that actually works is reduced costs to raise your weaker skills. This encourages you to make more realistic characters, though doesn't necessarily prevent you from making someone totally singleminded either.

[Username17]

Ultimately you'll be getting ripped off doing it

Can you hear yourself talk?

If it is an acceptable solution for you to allow people to suck then we don't have any problems with the way things work now.

You can spend a few skill points into a bunch of cross class skills - you'll just suck.

You can take only levels of Fighter - you'll just suck.

If "You can do it but you'll be getting ripped off" is an acceptable solution, than we have an acceptable solution and nothing needs changing or discussing. Unless you hold for the lofty ideal of supporting character concepts without screwing any of them over, there doesn't need to be any game balancing at all.

So I completely reject your hypothesis, from the ground up. Every single word that comes out of your keyboard on this subject is dust.

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trade one set of imbalance for some other set of equal imbalance. Not under any circumstances. What you are offering is deliberately unbalanced - which means that by the time you add in designer error I just can't see this going anywhere good.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1083651186[/unixtime]]
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to trade one set of imbalance for some other set of equal imbalance. Not under any circumstances. What you are offering is deliberately unbalanced - which means that by the time you add in designer error I just can't see this going anywhere good.

Deliberately unbalanced? How so?

[Username17]

Deliberately unbalanced? How so?

If all you wanna do is swing a sword, then you can spend ALL your points on that. Ultimately you'll be getting ripped off doing it, due to the fact that each level fo skill is progressively harder to attain, but if you really wanna do taht you can.

Enough said.

This discussion is over.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

The skill system does suck though. You're either awesome or you suck. There should be more than two levels of ability possible in a decently build character.

[Username17]

The skill system does suck though.

Granted. Mostly because people can't make up their minds as to whether they are playing super heroics or a medieval sim.

If I hear one more person say that Rogues shouldn't be able to bring down magical effects because "they can't see how they would go about doing that" (despite the fact that they definitionally don't know how the magic stays up in the first place), I'm not even going to argue - I'm just going to cut their jeffreys off.

You're either awesome or you suck.

Well - there's a lot of gradation at the awesome or suck levels, though. A Rogue often runs around with a +23 or so to Hide, which is completely out of the range of anyone with a suck level to spot - but the people who are really good at seeing stuff are all up ons.

In fact, there's quite the arms race going on with the guy who is plus twenty two envying the person who is plus twenty four, and so on and so forth.

There should be more than two levels of ability possible in a decently build character.

Why?

Seriously, you are including the guys with a +18, a +19, a +20, a +21, and +22 as all having the same level of ability. And while compared to the guy with a +3 that he gets from having a high stat they do - compared to each other they don't.

Fundamentally, the guy with a +20 Spot doesn't care whether you have a +1 Hide or a +4 Hidw - he pretty much just sees you whatever you do. But he really cares a whole lot whether your Hide is +18 or +22.

In order to introduce "more than two levels of ability" (taking as granted that what we have are in fact two levels of ability), we would have to introduce people who are either awesome compared to the people who are awesome now, or suck compared to the people who suck now. And why would that be a good thing?

Why would having people on the Super Awesome scale necessarily be good for the game? They would function exactly the same as the awesome people against the current suckers, and the normally awesome people would function like the suckers against them. Aside from occassionally kicking player chaarcters right in the bean bag - how is that a good thing?

---

Players don't get enough skills, and there's no reason for Knowledge, Profession, and Craft skills to function on the same DC scale as regular skills. I mean, dude, those skills aren't opposed and there's nothing really epic you are supposed to be able to do with them.

I suggest that we do what class systems do best - they provide separate systems of point expenditures. We take all the non-active skills totally out of the skill list and give people a separate tally of points to spend on them based on their desired non-combat role.

There's no reason to make a DC 35 Profession check ever. The DCs don't need to go that high and the skill doesn't need to be graded on the same scale as Sneak or Sense Motive. It will partially solve the inadequate skills problem without actually making every character into a cookie cutter.

-Username17

[Desdan_Mervolam]

1083656720[/unixtime]]If I hear one more person say that Rogues shouldn't be able to bring down magical effects because "they can't see how they would go about doing that" (despite the fact that they definitionally don't know how the magic stays up in the first place), I'm not even going to argue - I'm just going to cut their jeffreys off.

Statements like this kinda make me want to get the rest of my group into the BBBoy message boards. I mean, seriously, the guy running the 3e game I'm in didn't think there was a way for a rogue to disable a Sepia Snake Sigil without, by nessessity, reading it (Which would trigger the trap), despite the fact that there is an explicitly-listed Disable Device DC for it.

-Desdan