Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Derp!

Derp!

Derp!

Derp!

[TheBiggerFish]

You cannot.

[SOLDIER First]

says who
abilities start at level 1 but that doesn't mean anything

[Shadestyle]

I like "Ability Cap of 4 until level 6, at which point it becomes ability level -2, and on level 5 it is level -1."

[Empiricist]

I would personally rather a far harsher cap such as Level/2, or just a fixed cap of 5 or something that is never raised. Even at Level 5, an Aura Charge, if the progression of Deep Pass is anything to go by, would be a 6x damage multiplier.

Alternatively, some sort of diminishing returns system.

[SOLDIER First]

Level/2 is .5 for Level 1 characters, 1 for Level 2 characters (effectively preventing upgrades), 1.5 for Level 3 characters, and only actually allows legitimate upgrading at Level 4.

[Empiricist]

Unless the GMs plan to start develing PCs, that won't be much of a problem since no one will be starting at any level less than 6.

[kj1225]

Maybe the problem is with how much of an upgrade upgrade are and not with the number of levels.

[Empiricist]

Possibly, but the cap does need to be adjusted. Nerf upgrades too much and there's no point, but if upgrades are viable then it's honestly best to just pump all your AP into one useful Action a lot of the time short of some sort of diminishing returns mechanism.

[Shadestyle]

Maybe Gms dissallow quadradic scaling of skills after level 3?

So instead of increasing the dice, which exponentuially increases it's effectiveness as stats increase, it adds flat dice or horizontal growth after 3.

[Empiricist]

Might be best to just standardize everything first, then see if there's anything to go on. Because right now it's a mess with buffs apparently able to either be in terms of their target (Parov Stelar) or their user (Kyle Johnson), along with some "Hit Harder" Actions using unique calculations (Big Boom) and others being expressed in terms of Basic Attack (God Hand).

I suppose if all else fails, you could just make all base values such as damage come from equipment, while stat points directly correspond to Upgrade Points for specific disjoint subsets of Actions. So only CON can give you regen and ailment-resistence perks, only RES gives you guarding and reflection, only BST gives you charge attacks, etc.

[Shadestyle]

Yeah, but if you standardize everything, It makes things dull.

Like, Really dull.

The only reason we even have these precedents to base other things on is because things were not standardized, and it basically guts new characters before they are even conceived of.

We don't need to limit things, we just need more general guideline.

I suggest this,

No skill caps, aside from the obvious level skill cap,

Quadratic growth ends after level 3, so your third level in a skill is the last one where you can increase the basic formula's effectiveness.

Level 4 and onward, you can only add individual or unrelated effects, such as +1d6 bonus damage, Heal health on use, debuff an enemy, ignore 4 RES, and so on.

After level 6, or some suitable level, your skill is applicable for an Ult, a new skill which has less caps, but can only be used after a set amount of turns, when certain conditions are fulfilled, and/or Once per battle, plot, level, or boss fight, or something similar.

So Deep pass would probably get a huge nerf, but then an ultimate version of it could be added which has restrictions on it's use for the purpose of doing the epic shenanigans associated with it now.

Does anybody have anything they would like to add, subtract, or comment on about my idea?

the reason level 4 and onward are so weak is because of the action pumping thing, this way, 3 levels in a skill is 3d6 extra damage at best, or some minor effects stacked on to it to keep it's action economy reasonable if they just POUR points into it after level 3. and it makes it applicable for a stronger version to be used, which gives people the freedom to increase their power level for that ability further.

[Empiricist]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not asking for a bog standard set of archetypes that everything needs to fit in, just that everything in a general category should be consistent.

"Hit Harder" Actions should either be in terms of Basic Attack, or have their own calculations, there shouldn't be some that use the former and others that use the latter. Likewise buffs and debuffs should either be proportional to the caster's stats, or manifest as a percentage penalty/buff to their target irrespective of the caster's stats, there shouldn't be instances of both.

Otherwise you're going to have to juggle each existing type, which isn't going to end well because how the hell are you meant to try and balance two completely different kinds of calculations?

[Shadestyle]

Problem with that is, there should be, that sounds like a bog standard set of archetypes to me.

Basic attack based actions are hit harder skills

Percentage based debuffs are the only debuffs.

I mean, Removing entire chunks of potential character design is not a sign of good game design.

Yet again, as if I even need to repeat myself by now, we need General guidelines instead of limiting rules, and players willing to discuss reasonably with their GM about making appropriate changes to their character when needed.

With that system, more than 60% of players will need to completely rework their charecters, when only 10% of charecters have Overpowered abilities or concepts.

I mean, Dackly has Basic attack stims, individual calculations, Stat based, and percentage based debuffs on the same sheet, and she is balanced because i took the time to discuss what changes were appropriate to the character.

[Empiricist]

I mean, Removing entire chunks of potential character design is not a sign of good game design.

It is if they are redundant and make the game nigh-impossible to balance. It's not going to change the nature of the attacks, an attack will still be an attack, a debuff will still be a debuff. Having conflicting calculation methods isn't real variety. Do you see any sort of proper game that uses two completely different damage calculation systems at utter random? Because that's the status quo.

If we just go off the majority, very few Actions will require modification. Most attacks ARE implicitly in terms of Basic Attack. Most buffs ARE percentage-based.

In fact the two minority Attacks that come to mind are Alanis' spells that need a nerf anyway, and Big Boom both of which already require reworking (the former being OP, the latter being underpowered).

[kj1225]

If we just go off the majority, very few Actions will require modification. Most attacks ARE implicitly in terms of Basic Attack. Most buffs ARE percentage-based.

HISS