Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5651994" data-attributes="member: 13650">I think your instincts are right; fewer categories makes it easier to find something a home. I also better understand your scaling DCs now that you point out this is not a 4e-esque system with built in raises.The last area that I see catching you up is the relationship between # skills and # skill points. Some skill systems create a direct linkage between aptitude and actions. This system does that to the extreme because if your aptitude is not within one step of the difficulty of the action, you auto fail. This means that all actions MUST fall under a skill, otherwise if the action is too difficult and no one can be trained, no one can do it.So you'll need a really robust skill list. Hard, but certainly doable.But once you've settled on the skill list you need to determine how many skill points to give out. This decision is really important because you need to balance the number of skills with the number of skill points. This is an area where you might want to refine your purchase schedule. For example, if the skill list is the size of 4e, the 1/3/5 might be a bad choice because achieving &quot;master&quot; (9 points) is a tradeoff from gaining &quot;trained&quot; in half the list. A purchase schedule of 1/2/3 would put &quot;master&quot; at 6 points and a third of the list. The converse is also true (large list would benefit from more points so the cost of entry to any one skill is reduced). Fortunately, these changes are easy to just adjust the points awarded later in the design process. It really isn't a fundamental design issue--and your fundamentals look great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AeroDm, post: 5651994, member: 13650"] I think your instincts are right; fewer categories makes it easier to find something a home. I also better understand your scaling DCs now that you point out this is not a 4e-esque system with built in raises. The last area that I see catching you up is the relationship between # skills and # skill points. Some skill systems create a direct linkage between aptitude and actions. This system does that to the extreme because if your aptitude is not within one step of the difficulty of the action, you auto fail. This means that all actions MUST fall under a skill, otherwise if the action is too difficult and no one can be trained, no one can do it. So you'll need a really robust skill list. Hard, but certainly doable. But once you've settled on the skill list you need to determine how many skill points to give out. This decision is really important because you need to balance the number of skills with the number of skill points. This is an area where you might want to refine your purchase schedule. For example, if the skill list is the size of 4e, the 1/3/5 might be a bad choice because achieving "master" (9 points) is a tradeoff from gaining "trained" in half the list. A purchase schedule of 1/2/3 would put "master" at 6 points and a third of the list. The converse is also true (large list would benefit from more points so the cost of entry to any one skill is reduced). Fortunately, these changes are easy to just adjust the points awarded later in the design process. It really isn't a fundamental design issue--and your fundamentals look great. [/QUOTE]

Verification