i have made a new one.

www.fflr.dk/tabletop/TROS/TRoSPri.pdf

Rate it and give me a comment.

Hi,

bergh wrote: i have made a new one.

uh!

it was not to offend anyone i made it!
sorry i have never said i dident like that one Jake has done, actually i like the system so much, becouse you don't have to think "balance" all the time.

I made it becouse i think that i wanted to expand the idea a little bit, nothing else, and the TRoS forum don't getting any worse by people shareing there ideas.

I was not trying to fix anything, just expand a little, and adjust for a more generic fantasy world.

I don't think anybody was trying to call you out about making a new chart.

They can't evaluate it without knowing what you were trying to do by making it.

Making the chart suitable to a more generic fantasy world (and expand it )is a fine reason.

Now the folks who've actually played (unlike me) can let you know what they think of your effort.

hey dude
looked over the priorities and i can't see much of a change, except that you have taken the other races out of the race choices and you have split the temporal and mental attributes.

I don't really agree with this process as it stops you from having a really dumb guy that is socially inept but is really big and strong, or the opposite, a weedy guy with no physical ability to speak of that is very intelligent with a quick wit etc.

i'm not saying i play such characters only that with this chart they aren't possible.

I also like the option of having other races to choose from and what i like about the TROS races is that they aren't defined at all. the seelie and unseelie are so vague in the descriptions i have alot of fun creating totally unusual races that still fit into the character.

I'm not having a go at you Brian or what you have done and i am all for (and think it is great) people sharing everything they come up with for the game. These are just my thoughts :)

hi thanks for reviewing.

Hmm, maybe splitting it up gives to problem you talked about. which i not good i can see! i should maybe think about that and change it.

Anyway i made it also becouse my players wanted to play a generic fantasy universe, and did not like wyerth as much as i did.

yes i share this, not becouse i need to harvest fame, but i im one of those types who like seeing what other do, and then change it to what i like.

Hi,

Bob McNamee wrote: I don't think anybody was trying to call you out about making a new chart.

They can't evaluate it without knowing what you were trying to do by making it. (SNIP)

Edge wrote: hey dude
I don't really agree with this process as it stops you from having a really dumb guy that is socially inept but is really big and strong, or the opposite, a weedy guy with no physical ability to speak of that is very intelligent with a quick wit etc.

It's interesting. Coupled with the house rules, I might observe the following:

(1) You might want to reduce the Attribute points slightly. Since nobody, not even an elf or dwarf, can have a TO higher than 5 by your house rules, that does mean a few extra points will be available to other Temporal Attributes that might normally be allocated to TO.

(2) "Superior" gifts and flaws sound interesting, but we'd need some examples to get a sense of how they balance out. Since this is obviously for a Middle-Earth campaign, can you give us some references to Superior Gifts or Flaws possessed by characters from the books?

(3) What's the in-game effects difference, other than slightly reduced finances, between Landless Nobility and Minor Nobility?

(4) Since Hobbit is only listed as Option G for Race, does that mean anyone who wants to create a Hobbit character *must* take the "ABCDEFG" Priority combination?

personally, I like this new priority table. I have often liked the idea of having a sort of superior gift, and this idea of having mental and temporal stats in different priorities isn't bad.
I will probably start using a slightly modified version of that table from now on. (I only plan to modify the races)

personally, I like this new priority table. I have often liked the idea of having a sort of superior gift, and this idea of having mental and temporal stats in different priorities isn't bad.
I will probably start using a slightly modified version of that table from now on. (I only plan to modify the races)

1. yes its 5 points BEFORE racial modifers., yes i have thinked about this, but again think not that even with the A priority in temporal stats that would mean around 5 in each, but i will hold an eye onto it, to see it it gives problems.

2. dont ask me yet, until now i haev told the player to ask for what they wanted and then i said yes or no. so i have no list

3. Landless nobility is quite a rich noble, he do not hold any lan he can tax the peasents from, but he owns several farms and such.
Minor Noblity, fits the desription in the TRoS book better, if i say "poor country knight", maybe if you have seen the comedy "A knight's Tale", like the heros knight, trying to earn money traveling around to turnaments and such.

4. Yes Actually!, but is that a bad thing? just gives the hobbits a free "A".
i would like the hobbits to somehow a little advantage. but if a players don't wants to have his A...then no problem...

thanks for looking at it and use time to write, i will add this i have written to the pdf, when i have the time...

Hi Krammer

Thanks for liking it, yes the races are the thing where each gaming group should decide what they want in there campaign.

hope you report back on it, so i can improve it.

Anyway, the rules for the races on the sheet are here:

www.fflr.dk/tabletop/TROS/Hobbits.pdf
www.fflr.dk/tabletop/TROS/Elves.pdf

bergh
Just apologising i was obviously blind when i read it yesterday, as lxndr has pointed out i have looked at the attribute priorities totally wrong.
Now looking at it correctly (seeing the fact that there is a G priority and that both temporal and mental are not bought with the same priority) i actually don't see a problem with the split. :)

bergh can you explain how this is more suited to generic fantasy than say the original?

Generic is more like the standard elf, dwarfs and such.
Warhammer world is a good example, dwarfs lives in the empire citys and elves also have there quarters. hobbits are people who live fully among humans.

Wyerth elves and dwarfs are more special, becouse they are dying race.
here it would be VERY rare is an Fay walked around in an human city.

anyway, its easy just to make your own race table to fit your vision on how things are going on!

IF you want elves and dwarves to be LESS special, why make them effectively rarer? In TRoS's ABCDEF system, "C" is all you need to be a non-magical halfling (such as a dwarf), and "B" for a non-magical Sidhe. But in your ABCDEFG system, "B" is needed for dwarfs, and "A" for Elfs." This makes non-humans (apart from Hobbits, anyway) even rarer, which suggests that your races are "more special", not "less special."

Anyway.

Becouse i don't wanted all the players to be non-humans,

anyway if you look at the elf,hobbit and dwarf rules i have made. you will find out that the the high priority you need to use, are balanced with the racial modifers you get. so in the end its balanced.
ie. Humans maybe only need to take a low priority in Race, and then high attributes are open for them. but the non humans races got so hefty racial modifers that it equals. also remeber that i think normal humans have maximum stat value at 7, non humans can get 10.

anyway i wants the non-humans races to be very special! but still rare, and right now there are 3 humans, 1 dwarf and 1 Elf in my group, and they all think that they really have chosen there prioritys in the best fasion. but they also like that each race have there special fell to it.

i hope this answer your Lxndr question in some way.

and to the question about extremes that you with my system could really make a very dump physical character, yes you can! i know, but remeber that Per,Wit and WP are mental, and those are used VERY much in combat, buying initiative and such. i think that in the end it don't matter much. i actually think that with the old system you could really make a combat monster.

47 points ok.
ST8 AG2 TO8 EN2 HT2 WP7 Wit7 MA2 Soc2 Per7
this character can't do much else then first round kills, hoping never really to be hurt, which also seem imposible with the TO8. where do you find such a person? a gladiator school?

with my system this monster is harder to make. (i hope it is).

Errr....
Bergh's example might seem like a combat GOD but it really isn't. The endurance score of 2 means that if he's in armor.. he'll be losing dice from the CP verrrrry rapidly. And if he's not wearing armor.. he's losing dice every 4 rounds.

My character can kill yours easily.. St of 7(8 if he's raged, the weaker form of berserking..) TO of 4 + full plate makes for a defensive rating of 10. And I have a greatsword and a CP of 11(with all factors factored). And this also means that I'll be evasive attacking your character. I can raise your ATN significantly in a red/red situation.(And IMO, I should be able to raise your DTN if you had went white..since all an evasive attack really is... is a terrain roll during an attack)....

Oh, and his endurance is 3 times what yours is. So you'd be losing CP dice long before he did. I.e. if your character had armor, he'd have lost 3 CP by the time mine had lost 1... 6 by 2... 9 by 3.. etc. See the serious advantage that gives me? I also can half-sword for attack or defense. Which means my thrust ATN is 5, and my half-sword DTN is 6 right? Pretty low numbers when you think about it.. Oh, and I can just as easily counter you(with or without employing the half-sword)..

This is the same character that has gone against a ST 8 and TO 15 and ST8-TO20 opponent.. and lived...never died.(Though I was spotted 5 SA points, making my CP 16..)

I am experiencing technical difficulties with my cognition at the moment, so excuse the fact that it may seem like I am on crack whilst typing my replies tonight..
-Ingenious

your human lived when faced a ST8 TO20 monster alone? wow!, non of my players could survive that.

anyway my examble was just that maybe some players wanted to make such a character, which would be boring.