Topic: Abilities Priority
Started by: Sir Mathodius Black
Started on: 6/30/2004
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 6/30/2004 at 3:09am, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
Abilities Priority
Simple question:
Does anyone ever put Abilities at anything less than Priority B? B is the lowest ive ever put it, considering any lower and you would have an average stat of under 4. Are the options for putting Abilities at priority C,D,E, and F there for actual use, or just to make the table in the book look complete...?
SMB
On 6/30/2004 at 4:04am, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I've used them, at least down to D. In fact, give it a shot. Put Skills in A and Gifts/flaws in B, and you'll find that you have a very, very well prepared non-combat non-sorcery character.
Jake
On 6/30/2004 at 4:24am, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I suppose it could work...although you would have to be very dedicated in order to make the character survive. I suspect, however, it would get kind of annoying having all the other players, not to mention most average people, being stronger, smarter and more charismatic than you...
On 6/30/2004 at 2:50pm, Dain wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Hey Jake,
*grin* What did you name that character?
Target "I'm awesome so long as I never leave the safety of my walled fortress" McStubbedAToeAndDiedFromIt?
On 6/30/2004 at 4:06pm, toli wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I pretty much always put abilities in A and then work everything else around that. I guess I like the idea of a physically and mentally 'fit' character who might be a bit 'young' (lower skills etc.). Just my preference.
It would really depend on the campaign and what I knew ahead of time to be the general plot. As a defeault, I like a character who has spent some time as a soldier or warrior but also has a profession like smithing or masonry or huntsman. I like the idea of him being dragged out of his quite life and off to war or something like that...One of may favorite characters was an academic/soldier from Xanaria....NT
On 6/30/2004 at 4:27pm, Lxndr wrote:
Re: Abilities Priority
Sir Mathodius Black wrote: Simple question:
Does anyone ever put Abilities at anything less than Priority B? B is the lowest ive ever put it, considering any lower and you would have an average stat of under 4. Are the options for putting Abilities at priority C,D,E, and F there for actual use, or just to make the table in the book look complete...?
SMB
I did "F" on my last character. Priorities A, Magic B, Social Class C, Skills D, Gifts E, Abilities F.
I like the guy. :)
On 6/30/2004 at 5:54pm, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Ive found that putting abilities in B can work fine, you just have to pick and play your strengths. Unlike putting them in A, you cant do everything well. But having 14 (or often times 15 because of your country) is actually really really good ive found, especially for solo campaigns. with sword and shield at 8 and a bow at 7, that makes for a beast of a warrior.
On 6/30/2004 at 7:31pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
SMB-
Some of the most dangerous people in the world are the ones with skills and special talents, not the biggest, fastest, strongest, or most martially prepared. This has always been true.
After all, it's easy to build an ability score of 2 up to a 4 in no time flat, and a "low" priority character becomes "average" very quickly, but will have an array of low skills and high-power gifts that other "average" folks don't have.
Jake
On 6/30/2004 at 7:36pm, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Thats very true. One thing i often miss is the fact that characters can advance and build up low scores into decent ones in a very short time, as you said.
On 6/30/2004 at 7:40pm, Ashren Va'Hale wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I built a skill based non combat character the first time I played TROS and he kicked butt by not ever using his own boots. By being a sneaky bastard and a persuasive speaker he got people to do the dirty work for him and he rackd up a really nasty body count this way without ever rolling a single die in combat.
So you can have a totally low attributes and low prof's and still have a dangerous character.
If you read song of ice and fire think little finger and how dangerous he was, same with tyrion lannister. Both of them were physically unimposing if not laughable and had no real combat ability but are perhaps the most dangerous characters in the book.
On 6/30/2004 at 7:50pm, Sir Mathodius Black wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
This is slighty unrelated, but I'm now building a character with low abilities and high skills, and the rulebook was not clear on whether you can spend only one MA point for each skill or more than one. For example, if I have the Craft Skill at SR 6, can I lower it to only SR 5, or spend more MA points and lower it to 3?
On 6/30/2004 at 7:58pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I seem to remember the rulebook capping it at 2 MA points per skill max, but I don't have it on me...
Jake
On 7/2/2004 at 11:13am, bottleneck wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Jake Norwood wrote: Some of the most dangerous people in the world are the ones with skills and special talents, not the biggest, fastest, strongest, or most martially prepared. This has always been true.
But it still bugs me when my horsethief (ride skill 5) cannot outride the combat monster in the party (skill 8) because he gets to roll 7 dice vs my 4...
Also, as the same combat monster found out; If you're fighting an opponent of superior skill, remember that buying initiative depends mostly on stats.
Basically, when I want to play a non-combat character, I still put A or B in stats, but favor MA, Social and stats relevant for my skills... (and then suck at proficiencies instead).
On 7/2/2004 at 5:13pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
But it still bugs me when my horsethief (ride skill 5) cannot outride the combat monster in the party (skill 8) because he gets to roll 7 dice vs my 4...
Possible. But as I look at the math (I am *not* a statistics guy) I see you having an equal chance most of the time, with 2 successes being average for each of you. A lower TN is better than more dice almost all of the time.
Jake
On 7/3/2004 at 10:08am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Jake Norwood wrote: Possible. But as I look at the math (I am *not* a statistics guy) I see you having an equal chance most of the time, with 2 successes being average for each of you. A lower TN is better than more dice almost all of the time.
BL> At DC 10 or lower: One point off the target number = (1 dice) / number of dice rolled
Or, for the mathematically disinclined, at 10 dice, adding a dice and subtracting the target number are the same things in terms of producing successes. A larger dicepool makes TN more valuable, a smaller dicepool makes adding dice more valuable.
yrs--
--Ben
On 7/3/2004 at 6:21pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Hi,
Also, don't forget, those low TN's really pay off when you add in SAs. Yeah, the guy may get more dice, but once the SAs kick in, the person with the better TN usually does much better.
Chris
On 7/5/2004 at 8:41am, bottleneck wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Bankuei wrote: Hi,
Also, don't forget, those low TN's really pay off when you add in SAs. Yeah, the guy may get more dice, but once the SAs kick in, the person with the better TN usually does much better.
Yeah, and that means that you should choose your SA's wisely. The big difference lies not really in the TN, but in whether the SA kicks in. But it's a valid point.
However, the two last posts also implicitly say that to benefit from a low TN, you need many dice. Meaning that if you want to be really good at a skill (doing stuff that needs 5 successes on skill checks etc) you need high priority for skills - but you *also* need a high stat to go with it, and possibly relevant SA's too.
Thankfully, everyone gets SA's regardless of priorities.
On 7/5/2004 at 4:34pm, Fizban wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I haven't made many characters and my only skill based character I dumped some serious insite to create so he had both A skills and A atributes, but I think many people under estemate the power of being able to buy a skill at 6 for 2 SA points. I didn't really even take advantage of this much and I still ended up almost filling my character sheet up. A low TN for every non-combat situation is very usefull.
On 7/6/2004 at 10:18am, bottleneck wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
Fizban wrote: both A skills and A atributes
Well...
but the basic question is: would you (assume a starting character) ever consider skills:A /attributes:C better than skills:C /attributes:A ? (or B/D or whatever).
Skills are great, everyone agrees. But I still suspect most people put higher pri's on stats (and weapon proficiencies). I also guess there are a lot of characters out there with some major flaws. (yeah, I know, with a bit of insight you can afford everything - I'm still talking about starting characters).
On 7/6/2004 at 10:45am, ZenDog wrote:
RE: Abilities Priority
I tend to like Profienceies, then Stats, then skills, then social, then Gifts/flaws, and F human last.
If I was in the right game though I would take a high soc I'm not interested in being gifted or fae, so it's always Human F for race. I wouldn't mind skills 4 or even 2 I guess. Flaws/Gifts I find the least interesting so I try to pick ones that won't have much affect or fit the charater concept. None would be ideal but it depends on the other priorities.
Of course I rarely get to play as I'm always GM, so it's all academic.