I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

[Enforcer84]

I haven't bought 6e yet but I have HD and have fiddled with it, now I have a question. Since there are no figured characteristics anymore, DEX now gives you combat order and Dex Rolls right?

 

Is there more?

[ghost-angel]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Combat Order, Dex Roll, Agility Skills Base.

 

That's all.

[Escafarc]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I've lowered the cost to 1pt and didn't break anything so far.

[Ice9]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

In a game where Agility skills are the most heavily used, it may be worth it. For the combat order alone, I don't think so, as PER rolls are equally important in acting first. Personally, I drop it to 1:1, but YMMV.

[薔薇語]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

GA is 100% correct (as usual). Personally, the way I view the current DEX costing scheme is as follows: 1pt for Agility skills and Dex rolls (exactly as the other stats are), and 1pt for +1 initiative. Together, that is 2pts per. I've yet to run a game in 6e but I feel as though one could easily say that DEX is 1 for 1 and make it a general rule that it doesn't add to Initiative. In order to increase initiative, you must buy lightning reflexes (which is already at the 1:1 rate). It seems simple, and allows for a more ground floor view of DEX and Initiative.

 

La Rose.

[Mister E]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

A lot of people have changed the cost of DEX to 1:1.

 

View Poll Results: What does Dexterity (DEX) cost in your game?

[Tasha]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

A lot of people have changed the cost of DEX to 1:1.

 

View Poll Results: What does Dexterity (DEX) cost in your game?

 

32 people isn't much of a sample to go by.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

True, but that's only one of the 6-10 threads that have already dealt with this topic...

[incrdbil]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

ChanginG Dex to one point would seem to require lowering the cost of lightning reflexes. Why would you be so foolish to buy it if Dex only costs one point?

 

2 points gets you a very large skill base of some very important combat based skills, and initiative superiority, and a heavily used characteristic roll, second only to perception. I can't see making it a one point characteristic without lowering the cost of other characteristics and lightning reflexes. A change that requires many other changes indicates it shouldn't be changed.

[jtelson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I think the systemic presumption is that Action/Combat Scenes and Situations will significantly outweigh Social, Investigative and Other Scenes and Situations thus the characteristic most beneficial in those scenes would have a higher value. This is probably an accurate presumption, certainly in my experience it's true.

 

If your group's play style or a specific campaign's setting downplays Dexocentric scenes (Court intrigue/Chess Masters - genreally setting that might benefit from Social/Alternate Combat Systems) then reducing the cost of Dex (and possibly increasing the cost of an alternate characterisitic) would make sense - In that case I would recommend changing the costing on lightning Reflexes to 1/2 or 2/3.

[Enforcer84]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Combat Order, Dex Roll, Agility Skills Base.

 

That's all.

 

So INT's Perception, Int roll and Int Skills doesn't rate? Smart guys unite!

[Enforcer84]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

I think the systemic presumption is that Action/Combat Scenes and Situations will significantly outweigh Social, Investigative and Other Scenes and Situations thus the characteristic most beneficial in those scenes would have a higher value. This is probably an accurate presumption, certainly in my experience it's true.

 

If your group's play style or a specific campaign's setting downplays Dexocentric scenes (Court intrigue/Chess Masters - genreally setting that might benefit from Social/Alternate Combat Systems) then reducing the cost of Dex (and possibly increasing the cost of an alternate characterisitic) would make sense - In that case I would recommend changing the costing on lightning Reflexes to 1/2 or 2/3.

 

Ah. That could be it. A bias towards action! Not just a crappy business motto anymore.

[mojo_bones]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

So INT's Perception' date=' Int roll and Int Skills doesn't rate? Smart guys unite![/quote']

 

agreed. If DEX is 2:1 then INT should be as well. ( I think I said that in my 6E group soon after reading through the books.)

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

all primary statts should be 1:1 so they are all comparable value

 

Brick "I have a 50 strength!"

Martial Artist "I have 30 dex ..."

 

 

Combat Order, Dex Roll, Agility Skills Base.

 

That's all.

 

*dives for cover*

 

32 people isn't much of a sample to go by.

 

just got a GM for sixth

I'll ask him

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

all primary statts should be 1:1 so they are all comparable value

Why?

[Squall]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Well, in fairness, his answer is right there in that sentence. "So they are all [of?] comparable value."

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

So why should they be of "comparable value"? Does puting all of them at 1:1 really make them of comparable value? Is DEX that gives combat initiative, DEX skill rolls, or INT that gives PER rolls and INT based skill rolls, really of equal value to CON which provides the (IME much rarer) CON roll and prevents being Stunned? Does he, or you, have a reason other than "because they should be the same"?

 

Personally I think a 1:1 is fairly balanced, but I've heard some very good arguments for INT and PRE being bumped up to 1:2 to match DEX instead and could easily see myself doing that in a campaign going for a certain feel (adjusting all related skill costs as well, I would think). Then again, the 2 points per DEX doesn't seem to bother me as much as it does some people...

[jtelson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Ah. That could be it. A bias towards action! Not just a crappy business motto anymore.

 

A Bias towards Action, I like it.

 

Well' date=' in fairness, his answer is right there in that sentence. "So they are all [of?'] comparable value."

 

Then it should probably be - The old primary characteristics should provide comparable value so they can all be costed at 1:1. If Dex provides more advantage than the others then it shoould either cost more or provide less and I think in most settings Dex, as written, has a higher utility than its siblings.

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Indeed

which is why con and body should be one statt called health that cost 1:1

since neither con nor body provide skills or rolls they are rather under rated compared to strength

[薔薇語]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

To me, if you break out the initiative aspect of DEX, then it become comparable to all the other stats in utility.

 

STR: Damage, lift, a few skills.

DEX: Agility Skills (a lot of them), and a generally more active Stat Roll.

INT: PER, K.Skills.

CON: Stun Res., and a valuable (albeit not often used) skill roll.

BODY: Life force - need more be said?

PRE: Charisma Skills (potentially very useful in all settings), PRE attacks and Res.

EGO: I have it. Do you? Psych Complications, force of will rolls, Mental power Res. Potentially very useful, especially if in a setting with Mentalists.

Initiative: Combat order!

 

All 8 of those seem of generally equal value to me. Each one has the potential to be more useful in specific settings, but none of them are of no value iin any setting. And for them to be stressed in a setting to the point of requiring an increased cost scheme seems rarer than others might give it credit for.

 

La Rose.

[Matt Holck]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

strength is still king of the statts

[jtelson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Each one has the potential to be more useful in specific settings, but none of them are of no value iin any setting. And for them to be stressed in a setting to the point of requiring an increased cost scheme seems rarer than others might give it credit for.

 

La Rose.

 

I agree about the rarity -I've been playing games for over 30 years now and I can point to maybe 2 settings that I've run or played in where I would consider recosting the Hero characteristics as they are now, and that's just consider not a lock by any stretch. There are probably half a dozen more rettling around in my head where I'd look at characteristic costs but the ideas are odd and unlikely to ever be run, they probably won't end up written down (Unless I try to do another Savage Summer, in which case Hero Characteristics won't be a priority)

[jtelson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

Indeed

which is why con and body should be one statt called health that cost 1:1

since neither con nor body provide skills or rolls they are rather under rated compared to strength

 

At first read through I felt that way as well and said so - most of the responses I got were Granularity, Granularity, blah, blah, blah. After giving it a lot more thought I've changed my mind - Not being Stunned and Not being Dead have considerable utility in Combat. So looking back at Enforcer's apt tag to my clunky description The Bias towards Action combining them might well make the pair the equivilent of a single 2 point stat; So though splitting them does give Con a slight edge in utility (More Con Rolls than Body Rolls), it is slight and counterbalanced by the systemic advantage of granularity (blah blah blah)

[ghost-angel]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

So INT's Perception' date=' Int roll and Int Skills doesn't rate? Smart guys unite![/quote']

 

Which would be only part of the reason I think DEX was priced incorrectly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I'm curious, why is Dex still more expensive than other characteristics?

 

In a game where Agility skills are the most heavily used' date=' it may be worth it. For the combat order alone, I don't think so, as PER rolls are equally important in acting first. Personally, I drop it to 1:1, but YMMV.[/quote']

 

GA is 100% correct (as usual). Personally' date=' the way I view the current DEX costing scheme is as follows: 1pt for Agility skills and Dex rolls (exactly as the other stats are), and 1pt for +1 initiative. Together, that is 2pts per. I've yet to run a game in 6e but I feel as though one could easily say that DEX is 1 for 1 and make it a general rule that it doesn't add to Initiative. In order to increase initiative, you must buy lightning reflexes (which is already at the 1:1 rate). It seems simple, and allows for a more ground floor view of DEX and Initiative. [/quote']

 

agreed. If DEX is 2:1 then INT should be as well. ( I think I said that in my 6E group soon after reading through the books.)

 

First, I think DEX, INT and PRE should be priced equally. Each provides a skill roll bonus and a second effect (combat order; PER rolls; PRE attacks). The other 1 point stats are not solely for rolls and skills - they also have another effect.

 

Personally, I have never found "going first" to be all that valuable. However, even if you do, then a good PRE allows you to make a PRE attack that causes others to delay - result you go first. A good INT allows you to make PER rolls - result being you are not surprised, allowing your attackers to go first.

 

A common argument is that agility skills are more valuable than other skills. If that is the case, why is it only the characteristic (and the skill levels, which are limited characteristics) that have their prices changed? If agility skills are more valuable than interaction skills, why do both cost 3 points for a full skill and +2 for a 1 point bonus to the roll? I think DEX was overpriced due to an over-emphasis on the value of combat order, and the skill levels then variant priced because DEX was more expensive than INT or PRE - which suggests that combat order wasn't as important after all. Ultimately, however, I think that DEX may be more accurately priced than PRE and INT.

 

My initial premise was that DEX should cost 1, but I'm more coming around to the belief INT and PRE should cost 2 each. We can then price out the other effects of these stats.

 

Skill rolls? I'd say for 5 points you get +1 for all rolls based on that stat (other than PER rolls). That's a -1 limitation on the characteristic. We can then further limit the stat to get "only adds to one roll at any one time", probably a further -1, so say 3 points. Only being able to add to a restricted group of rolls might be -1/2 (so being able to add +1 to all of a restruicted group costs 4 points, and only one of that restricted group costs 2 points). That likely means reducing the price of +1 to a single skill to 1 point (or maybe 1.5 points). Paying 4 points for +1 to a single roll seems vastly overpriced when I can pay 5 points for +1 to all rolls (like complementary skills) plus get the second benefit of the characteristic.

 

Since the rolls bonus costs 5, the other benefit must cost 5, right?

 

So +5 Lightning Reflexes with all actions costs 5, and limiting the actions reduces the cost.

 

And +1 with all PER rolls costs 5 points, with narrower focus limiting the benefits and reducing the cost.

 

PRE is the tough one. Is 5 points appropriate for +1d6 PRE attack and +5 PRE defense, or should it be 5 points for just the PRE attack? In the former case, +1d6 PRE attack probably needs to cost 2.5 points (say 3 points) and +2 PRE defense probably costs 1 point. In the latter, we probably remove PRE defense from PRE and add it to EGO.

 

I could live with the latter - EGO rolls don't come with a skill suite. We could allow +2 PRE defense for 1 point, +2 to resist mental powers for 1 point, and maybe make +1 to EGO rolls 2 points. That makes +5 EGO worth 7 points, so there's a bit of slippage there.

 

Finally, I would suggest spelling out the costing for these abilities as being "limited characteristics". Why? Because one of the problems with appropriately pricing these ancillary effects has always been Normal Characteristics Maxima. If the cost of the characteristic is doubled, the cost of the related abilities should also double. That's not as big an issue now that 6e removed NCM as a "rule", but it remains in use by a lot of gamers.