forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I haven't personally seen major unbalancing due to these changes, but I suppose it may just be a matter of time before issues arise.

I still don't believe that changes to base stats (within reason, no Hobbit with 7 Body) would significantly mar the feel of the game. I think the feel of the game stems more from atmosphere, story, and the challenges the fellowship faces, rather than the stats on each character's sheet.

I'd like to note that I don't allow my players to change starting Common Skills. There's enough flexibility there already. And Virtues I would only allow on very rare occasions. There won't be any Woodmen with Elf-magic, but if a Hobbit devotes their entire adventuring career to reclaiming the Greydelve, I may allow them to take Durin's Way.

robert_pat wrote:I haven't personally seen major unbalancing due to these changes, but I suppose it may just be a matter of time before issues arise.

Or you might've gotten lucky. The combinations that are unbalancing aren't rare and don't need to be aimed for to be achieved, but they aren't universal either. What've your players got for Cultures and Stats?

robert_pat wrote:I still don't believe that changes to base stats (within reason, no Hobbit with 7 Body) would significantly mar the feel of the game.

Well, what's reasonable? A Hobbit with Body 4 seems reasonable, and will still do more damage than a Beorning or Dwarf with Body 2. On the other hand, using one of the existing stat arrays but moving one point from any one stat to any other probably isn't gonna break anything...but 'any setup adding to 14' is a far cry from that sort of minor change.

If you just want to phrase it as free spending, the current setups are literally

"You have a high, a medium, and a low stat. The medium can't be higher than the high, and the low no higher than the medium. All have a maximum of 7 and a minimum of 2. You have 14 points to distribute."

With the high, medium, and low stats determined by Culture. That's really no more restrictive than many games stat-layouts and changes almost literally nothing but phrasing (and letting you pick your Favored Skill).

robert_pat wrote:I think the feel of the game stems more from atmosphere, story, and the challenges the fellowship faces, rather than the stats on each character's sheet.

Well, sure. But the mechanics really help to reinforce those things. Hope and Shadow economy, Dwarves being the only ones who usually wear heavy armor, and so on.

robert_pat wrote:I'd like to note that I don't allow my players to change starting Common Skills. There's enough flexibility there already. And Virtues I would only allow on very rare occasions. There won't be any Woodmen with Elf-magic, but if a Hobbit devotes their entire adventuring career to reclaiming the Greydelve, I may allow them to take Durin's Way.

I'd be leery of the latter, as I feel it diminishes dwarven uniqueness, but it's not the end of the world or anything if it's very occasional.

I don't have my player's character sheets in front of me, because we're on hiatus. But we have a Beorning, two Dwarves, an Elf, a Hobbit, a Barding, and two Woodmen. A lot of players for a fellowship, but one or two are usually unable to make the sessions. A Dwarf has a Bearded Axe, a Hobbit has a Spearman's Shield, and a Woodman has Noble Armour. I think those are all the cross-culture Rewards. There are no cross-culture Virtues. Our Hobbit is no Strongman, and our Dwarves aren't cheerleaders, and so on.

Deadmanwalking wrote: Well, what's reasonable? A Hobbit with Body 4 seems reasonable, and will still do more damage than a Beorning or Dwarf with Body 2. On the other hand, using one of the existing stat arrays but moving one point from any one stat to any other probably isn't gonna break anything...but 'any setup adding to 14' is a far cry from that sort of minor change.

For the record, my rules do have the stipulation of no stat higher than 7 or lower than 2. And I'd say your "free spending" has so many stipulations that it'd be an illusion of freedom at best. Hardly any more free than the six given background that fit those parameters. My rules are a significant change, I agree. I never claimed that they were minor, just that I don't think they could possibly break the game more than the LM could correct for.

robert_pat wrote:I don't have my player's character sheets in front of me, because we're on hiatus. But we have a Beorning, two Dwarves, an Elf, a Hobbit, a Barding, and two Woodmen. A lot of players for a fellowship, but one or two are usually unable to make the sessions. A Dwarf has a Bearded Axe, a Hobbit has a Spearman's Shield, and a Woodman has Noble Armour. I think those are all the cross-culture Rewards. There are no cross-culture Virtues. Our Hobbit is no Strongman, and our Dwarves aren't cheerleaders, and so on.

But would you allow a Hobbit strongman or dwarf Cheerleader? If not, then you're not actually allowing any 14 point distribution, and should perhaps consider a midpoint between the basic set of stat layouts rather than allowing any 14 point distribution.

A simple one would be giving each culture a 'weak stat' that maxes at 4. Body for Hobbits and Woodmen, Heart for Elves and Dwarves, and Wits for Beornings and Bardings. That'll solve at least most of the mechanical problems (many Virtue advantages are to compensate for low scores and get too good when stacked on high ones, or are based on intentionally low Scores, like the Dwarf's encumbrance reducer), and a significant subsection of the thematic ones, though you can still wind up with body 3 on a Dwarf while the Hobbit has a 4. It also has the virtue of being very simple.

robert_pat wrote:For the record, my rules do have the stipulation of no stat higher than 7 or lower than 2.

That's not a very meaningful restriction in a lot of ways, though. It's a good idea, and maintains the 'attribute caps' in the existing game, but that's all it does.

robert_pat wrote:And I'd say your "free spending" has so many stipulations that it'd be an illusion of freedom at best. Hardly any more free than the six given background that fit those parameters. My rules are a significant change, I agree. I never claimed that they were minor, just that I don't think they could possibly break the game more than the LM could correct for.

It actually only allows those backgrounds precisely, in terms of stat layout. I was just noting that if you wanted it to be phrased as a pool you spent, doing that would be the same as the core rules almost precisely. Basically, the aesthetic of a pool spend rather than picking from a list with no meaningful mechanical change.

Well, the high races may also want some flexibility. I'm sure some of the Dunedain have better wits then 5. Likewise, some Noldor may have higher heart then 5.