Negatory

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

I consider 9- the Floor. I like it there. Keeps in line with the systems stated goal of Heroic Action. I feel no need to go below that.

 

And at 0 DEX you're adding 0 to a 9-. I personally consider that gone, and not using it.

[Starlight]

Re: Negatory

 

I consider 9- the Floor. I like it there. Keeps in line with the systems stated goal of Heroic Action. I feel no need to go below that.

 

And at 0 DEX you're adding 0 to a 9-. I personally consider that gone, and not using it.

 

Applying the mathematical definition of floor as that which you cannot go below, since you can self-evidently go below 9- that is clearly not the floor.

 

As to whether 9- is a good choice of lower limit? Your opinion is as valid as mine. It's purely a matter of personal preference.

 

A character with 0 DEX has a 9- base chance of success in a DEX based skill roll. A lump of rock has no chance of making such a DEX based skill roll. So the character with 0 DEX is still getting a benefit from having a DEX characteristic. The characteristic is obviously not gone as the character is able to use mere possession of the characteristic as a reason to be allowed to make a skill roll.

 

(As a GM I'd never prohibit a player from trying to make a skill roll even if their character's relevant characteristic had been drained to zero. I would probably pick something less than 9- for the chance though. (And then add back in situational modifiers if it was a suitably heroic and needed action to give the player a good chance of making it. Rules take second place to group enjoyment in my games. That I personally would ignore the analysis given above doesn't make it any less accurate however.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

rocks aren't ambulatory.

 

If having DEX 0 is the equivalent of being Entangled, treat it like that. There's still no reason to go negative.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

rocks aren't ambulatory.

 

If having DEX 0 is the equivalent of being Entangled, treat it like that. There's still no reason to go negative.

 

Why 9-? Tell me that, and you may convince me. What is the magic pitched there? Just because that is the roll at zero DEX/INT/EGO etc, doesn't matter: why not decide that at zero characteristic you get 8-? That would at least have the advantage of coinciding with the lowest skill roll you can normally have (for familiarities) but it doesn't work out with CHAR/3+9 there: you wind up with 9-...which is not a value that corresponds to anything. That brings me back to my main objection here: it is arbitrary.

[Phil]

Re: Negatory

 

Why 9-? Tell me that' date=' and you may convince me. What is the magic pitched there? Just because that is the roll at zero DEX/INT/EGO etc, doesn't matter: why not decide that at zero characteristic you get 8-? That would at least have the advantage of coinciding with the lowest skill roll you can normally have (for familiarities) but it doesn't work out with CHAR/3+9 there: you wind up with 9-...which is not a value that corresponds to anything. That brings me back to my main objection here: it is arbitrary.[/quote']

 

Can't say I disagree. I happen to think that there are actually two systemic problems: Char/3+9 is part of the problem, and setting the base attribute at 10 is the other part of the problem. These two facts in combination mean you have to go negative to have granularity at a low level, but this adds complications that clearly some people don't like. I have to say I find myself in an answer-free zone on this one! Can't wait til 7th edition

[torchwolf]

Re: Negatory

 

Can't say I disagree. I happen to think that there are actually two systemic problems: Char/3+9 is part of the problem' date=' and setting the base attribute at 10 is the other part of the problem. These two facts in combination mean you have to go negative to have granularity at a low level, but this adds complications that clearly some people don't like. I have to say I find myself in an answer-free zone on this one! Can't wait til 7th edition [/quote']

 

Do you mean (Char/3)+8? Otherwise you get a base Roll of 12- assuming base attributes at 10.

I've toyed with the Char/3 concept but I think it makes the attributes have too much impact for many campaigns.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

Why 9-? Tell me that' date=' and you may convince me. What is the magic pitched there? Just because that is the roll at zero DEX/INT/EGO etc, doesn't matter: why not decide that at zero characteristic you get 8-? That would at least have the advantage of coinciding with the lowest skill roll you can normally have (for familiarities) but it doesn't work out with CHAR/3+9 there: you wind up with 9-...which is not a value that corresponds to anything. That brings me back to my main objection here: it is arbitrary.[/quote']

 

Because the system starts at 9.

 

To be honest, if you really want to do something, I suggest stating that at 0 any associated roll drops to 8- like a Familiarity. Not go negative.

 

I don't care how you crack the nut, Negative Characteristics are not something I find in any way a solution. Take it as you will.

[Hierax]

Re: Negatory

 

Another solution would be to use the Toolkitting options change the CHAR/SKILL Rolls so that a 0 CHAR is a 0 Roll.

 

e.g.,

• CHAR 0-10: Roll = CHAR;
  
• CHAR 11+ = regular CHAR/5 + 9 (or CHAR-10/5+11)
  

Would give you:

CHAR = Roll

• 0 = 0-
  
• 1 = 1-
  
• 2 = 2-
  
• 3 = 3-
  
• 4 = 4-
  
• 5 = 5-
  
• 6 = 6-
  
• 7 = 7-
  
• 8 = 8-
  
• 9 = 9-
  
• 10 = 10-
  
• 11-12 = 11-
  
• 13-17 = 12-
  
• 18-22 = 13-
  
• 23-27 = 14-
  
• 28-32 = 15-
  
• ...
  

 

A nice full spread of granularity and no Negative Characterisitics required!

 

Most Characters wouldn't change, only those with 10 or less in a CHAR. And that's just one simple toolkitting option that addresses both issues.

[The Main Man]

Re: Negatory

 

I think that I am confused here a little bit.

 

in 6E1 pg 137 it states:

 

A Characteristic that’s been affected by a negative Adjustment Power (such as a Drain) can be “reduced into the negatives” solely for the purpose of determining how long it takes to regain the lost points. For example, a character could be attacked with a Drain STR until he’s at “-25 STR.” He functions as if he had STR 0, but it will take him longer to regain all the Drained STR because he starts regaining it from “-25,” not from 0.

 

While you cannot buy a CHAR as a negative number (a case reserved only for STR and COM (which costed you points anyway) in 5e) in 6e, you do have the general effect of negative CHAR through Drain.

 

Looks like the general best of both worlds to me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

What those who want Negative Char are looking for is likely a couple things:

 

First, for it to continue to affect Characteristic and Skill Rolls.. -20 DEX / 5 = 9 + - 4 Dex Based Skill Roll, or a 5-.

 

Second, some liked the STR Lift Chart to go into Negatives to continue dividing by 2 for Max Lift.

 

Possibly some other things.

 

Of course, just because it isn't RAW, doesn't mean it can't be used. But that bugs some people.

[Hierax]

Re: Negatory

 

My above example takes care of the Characteristic/Skill Rolls part of getting full Granularity and does it without using Negative Characteristics.

[The Main Man]

Re: Negatory

 

What those who want Negative Char are looking for is likely a couple things:

 

First, for it to continue to affect Characteristic and Skill Rolls.. -20 DEX / 5 = 9 + - 4 Dex Based Skill Roll, or a 5-.

 

Second, some liked the STR Lift Chart to go into Negatives to continue dividing by 2 for Max Lift.

 

Possibly some other things.

 

Of course, just because it isn't RAW, doesn't mean it can't be used. But that bugs some people.

 

I admit that I agree with the general logic of a continuous penalty to Skill Rolls, but I do have the feeling that the CHAR 0 floor is overall meant to benefit both the players so that they are not completely screwed as well as for the villain that the GM didn't quite plan on being owned so easily by said players, should the event arise.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Negatory

 

That has not changed at all: you still have to count negative characteristics for recovery purposes, it is just that you stop at zero for characteristic roll purposes.

 

See - it's causing confusion already

 

In all fairness (while I don't mind being used as an example), I don't have 6e yet, and wasn't confused so much as completely ignorant of the "track negatives for recovery" part of the rule.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

I admit that I agree with the general logic of a continuous penalty to Skill Rolls' date=' but I do have the feeling that the CHAR 0 floor is overall meant to benefit both the players so that they are not completely screwed as well as for the villain that the GM didn't quite plan on being owned so easily by said players, should the event arise.[/quote']

 

Well you can not 'own' someone with a drain, but you certainly can with a Blast. So the villain will want to KO the PC: what do they do then?

[Jagged]

Re: Negatory

 

Of course, just because it isn't RAW, doesn't mean it can't be used. But that bugs some people.

 

Not "bugs" so much as wanting to understand why?

 

Since we are told to count below zero for recovery using 0 as the floor is a new rule to remember. I would like to think that there was a reason for the change. No one has raised any problems caused by negatives so at the moment it seems like it was done for preference.

 

Fair enough, but there are negatives to the loss of negatives ( ) and no positives.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

My above example takes care of the Characteristic/Skill Rolls part of getting full Granularity and does it without using Negative Characteristics.

 

 

It certainly does, and I like the notion BUT (there always has to be one) it also makes draining characteristics from characters with 'normal' characteristics horribly effective, creating a dual tier, which is not reflected in characteristic cost.