legodps's page

My inclination would be to use none of those precisely.

I'd say that you can only have one stat below 10, none below 8, and can only buy down one stat, and that by no more than two points.

That means that, say, a Kasatha could only buy down Str or Wis to 10, not lower, couldn't buy down Int at all, and could only buy down, say, Chr if he bought up Int and didn't buy down Wis or Str.

That set of restrictions makes Race stat mods pretty meaningful, as you can only change one of them to be lower than normal, ever, and need to buy off the penalty and not buy down the bonuses if you're taking a different penalty.

That's how I'd do it.

A solid option, thank you for the contribution!

Let me state beforehand that I quite enjoy this new system of stat distribution with the 1 for 1, 10 point-buy ability. I've participated in a number of games that have randomly generated stats and its been a little unfun, but at the same time, point-buy 25 can be a little difficult to calculate and communicate to new players. As such, I think this method is a solid improvement.

Problem:
If one was to use a home rule of allowing subtraction from stats to allow for purchase in others, given the current rule set, it seems like it could devalue the choice of race you pick. For example, assume I as a player want to create a technomancer. If I can subtract from the stats I would naturally gain a bonus in from race/theme and put those points into other stats, the best logical choice would be to pick whatever race has the best additional benefits (maybe the human for the feat and skill, maybe the kasathas for the extra arms, maybe the lashunta for the telepathy, etc.) and redistribute from there. The book explicitly states that theme and race bonuses are applied before stat points are allocated and that no stat at the start of the game can go above 18. Understanding that what I'm suggesting with subtraction for bonuses is a house rule as the optional rule they mention is only to allow subtraction, no redistribution.

Question:
What would be the best method to allow subtraction from stats without devaluing the racial/theme bonuses?

I've thought of four potential solutions, and perhaps others have alternate suggestions or critic.

1) Having the racial modifiers apply to both the stat value and the maximum starting value. I.E. if I play an android, I would start at Dex: 12 Int: 12 Cha: 8 (the rest 10) and could raise dex and/or int up to 20, but a maximum charisma of only 16. The advantage of this is that the player is incentivised to pick a race that compliments their chosen primary attribute to allow a better maximum. The disadvantage of this that I can see is that it could mess with how the game is balanced, as there was likely a reason pazio declared the limit of 18 (remember, these are starting values only).

2) having the racial modifiers apply to the stat value and enforcing a minimum stat requirement (say no lower than 8), modified by racial bonuses. I.E. If I'm playing an android, assuming a minimum of 8 must be in a stat, I would start with a 12 dex 12 int 8 cha, and could subtract my dex and int at maximum to 10 (8 minimum + 2 racial), but could subtract my charisma all the way down to 6 (8 minimum - 2 racial). The advantage I see to this method is that it keeps the maximum stat values the same and allows subtraction. The disadvantage seems to be that someone could still create a radically divergent character from their bonuses, though that could be the value.

3) combine methods 1 and 2 such that both minimum and maximum values are altered by this system, preventing core stat dumping of racial values and encouraging people to maximize what their race is good at. The disadvantages of those methods also seem to apply.

4) make subtraction worth less to characters. This is probably the worst of the solutions I thought of, but I'll suggest it anyway as a possibility. Assume that I want to dump some stats, to prevent me dumping stats that my race and theme align with, subtracting a point is only worth half a point in return. I.E. you would need to subtract 2 points to be able to add 1 point somewhere else. The advantage I can see to this would prevent extreme min-maxing, and also encourage people to utilize their racial bonuses wisely. The disadvantage I can see would be that any subtraction netting less feels kind of unfair when the system is about 1 for 1. Additionally, it would make characters that are very focused hard to do.

Some might suggest not using the house rule, which is a fair point. I would contend the role-play potential of having a -1 to give a character texture can be nice, and if I'm never going to roll a charisma check, I'd rather not have to have it at a 10 if the two points could help me elsewhere. Others might suggest the value of allowing people to choose stats and racial bonuses separate from each other, so that every race can be equally good at all things. My contention would be that it would make for a rather bland character creation. Having to make tough decisions about character creation like stats and abilities, personally, helps me feel attached to them. For the purposes of this discussion, I would rather focus things on how to allow some dumping of stats without devaluing racial stat modifiers or allowing for too much min-maxing, rather than a discussion of the value of such a house rule.

Overall, the purpose to the thread was to discuss if there was a rule I was missing that negated the edge case of escaping from combat having one slight advantage going first. Like I say, I don't think this applies for overall ship combat, and I appreciate the healthy discussion. Indeed, I think the idea of allowing the pilot with the highest roll to choose their place in initiative order. Thank you all for helping to clear this up.

Hey, so this will sound like an odd question, but looking at the star ship rules as written, there seem to be a scenario where rolling a bad piloting roll actually helps.

Scenario:
You and your crew are attempting to escape some ship(s). Assume that you are faster than them either by engineering rolls or straight thrusters. If you roll a low piloting check, you may move first, meaning that since you are faster, you can avoid any flybys and perhaps some weapon ranges all together. On the opponent's turn they have to try to catch up but aren't in range. Again assume our ship is strictly faster regardless of enemy engineering rolls.

Problem:
If we have a better pilot than the enemy, mechanically, if we are trying to escape NOT FIGHT, we are worse off, as our pilot would most likely roll higher than the enemy's pilot and subsequently move after the enemy, staying in range for flybys.

Doesn't it seem like there could be a mechanical benefit to having a worse pilot in the case of escape? It seems weird that a lower roll equals better off.

Please correct me if I got anything wrong or if I missed something.