Improving Attributes

[nsruf]

I thought the maximum temporal or mental attribute was 10, but the table for improving attributes on p. 69 lists a cost to raise attribute 10 to the next level of 25. Or is this supposed to be the cost to reach 10? This is especially odd since there is an extra step in the progression (1,2,4,7,10,... instead of 1,4,7,10,...) to extend it to 10 levels, where I believe costs to raise should be given only for the first nine levels. Has this been clarified?

[nsruf]

Anyone?

Feel free to tell me if this is a dumb question and I am missing the obvious;)

[Lxndr]

I think you're looking at it backwards.  It's 25 points to go from 9 to 10.

I could be wrong, though.  I need to actually be at home, looking at my book.

[nsruf]

The column is labelled "cost to raise attribute to next level". Also, if it is the cost to reach level 10, why does an ability score of 1 have a "cost to reach" of 1? I thought you were dead with a 0 score? Either way, there should be only 9 costs listed in the table (raise from 1-9 or raise to 2-10), but there are 10. I'm confused...

[Lxndr]

Ah!  I remember now.

That's the cost to raise an attribute FROM the level (say, 1) TO the next level (say, 2).  So 1 costs 1 point to raise to 2.  2 costs 2 points to raise to 3.  And so on.

[nsruf]

And the cost to raise from 10 to 11 is given as 25. That's what I was wondering about.

[Lxndr]

Yes, we're on the same page now.  Sorry about the confusion.

[nsruf]

No need to apologize. My first post wasn't very clear, now that I read it again.

[nsruf]

Let me make one last attempt to revive this thread. I won't bother you again if there are still no answers;)

Question: Is the table on p. 69 correct? It allows raising an attribute to 11 (whereas the introductory chapter says 10 is max for humans), and the costs for improving low attributes (below 4) seem rather cheap to me. Shouldn't the cost to raise be 1 for 1, 4 for 2, 7 for 3, etc. up to 25 for 9 (and nothing for 10, since you can't spend more than 25 points)?

[bottleneck]

This is probably not the answer you wanted, but...

...it's your choice! (or rather, your GM's)

*you could ignore it, saying max is 10 - always
*you could allow specific regions (those with bonus to the stat) to reach 11
*you could rule that 10 is max for all _humans_

I'm sure you'd never let anyone get 11 toughness, but what if someone really want to burn all their SA's on... say willpower - I'd let them do that.

(Personally, if I were GM, I'd cap all the stats, but if the players _really_ want to build a character with "only one stat", i'd let them anyway).

Whatever makes the game more fun.

(most likely, it will not be a big issue in any campaign - tROS is designed to be 'low-powered' and not 'epic-level').

[nsruf]

This is probably not the answer you wanted, but...

...it's your choice! (or rather, your GM's)

Ouch. No offense, but I hate this answer;)

Of course, I am free to do what I like with the game.  I can even throw the book away and write my own RPG. But since I have decided on TROS (and I'll be the GM, as soon as I can convince my D&D players to try it), I want to know how things are supposed to work. I can still decide to use it or change it after I understand why it is there. So I ask about an apparent inconsistency that is not adressed in the errata.

You might ask why I am hung up on something as trivial as point costs? Because I already intend to fiddle with the rules, and change the penalties for spellcasting. My current idea is to have each 10 or 12 points of aging normally incurred result in either the loss of an attribute point or the gain of a minor flaw (caster's choice). Since a minor flaw can be bought off with 10 SA points, I need to know whether the attribute loss will - on average - cost the same 10 points to recover. Or one of the two options will be moot.

The above lead me to look at the attribute costs more closely and discover what I consider an inconsistency. So I would like to know

a) What was intended?
b) What works for you?

and also

c) Isn't it awfully cheap to raise an attribute from 2 (real weak) to 4 (average)?

[Lxndr]

Relatively cheap, yeah.

But that's still a number of points that you DIDN'T get to spend elsewhere (like, say, on combat, or on spellcasting vagaries).  And unless you're playing "Blood Opera" style, SA points are really, really hard to come by.

(This coming from the guy who built a character with "F" in attributes.  Including an attribute at 1.  So I should know.)

[nsruf]

And unless you're playing "Blood Opera" style, SA points are really, really hard to come by.

I was wondering whether it would make sense to spend your initial 7 SA points on improvement straight away. But this appears not to be the case.

[Malechi]

errr yeah sure 10 is the maximum *starting* attribute for man.. ( i know it says attainable but...) but what about fey? or gol, or halflings etc... they can have modifiers that give them attributes higher than 10 surely? so then wouldn't it make sense to have attribute costs that place it higher than 10?

ne?

jason k.

[nsruf]

Good question.

IIRC no (playable) race on Weyreth has an attribute modifier higher than +2. With a maximum starting attribute of 7, that's still less than 10. Of course, if you play in a campaign with more extreme races, you hit the limit. The book isn't specific about that. By the table on p. 69, you could go up to 11 but still not higher. Maybe we are to assume that anything beyond 10 costs 25 SA per point, as this is the maximum you can spend?