[Notebook] Building New Races

[Sletchman]

Yeah, having code in HTML -- which you have to specifically fully enable -- for a decent looking presentation seems to defeat the purpose of having  wiki with a pseudo-Word interface

The worst bit is it has a "paste from word" button - which for no apparent reason destroys all formatting you previously had in word.

[Morgenstern]

3.0pts = +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Any]  - Listed in the Wiki, but not here.

That one's from the Saurian.  He's got +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Specific] at 3.5.  I personally don't think that the extra Any is worth another half point, but perhaps it is.  Might list that one as unsure for now, but I guess it can't be less than 3.5

Consider wht happens if you apply the "any" bonus to the same attribute as the fixed +2.

[Wolverine]

That one's from the Saurian.  He's got +2 [Any], +2 [Specific], -2 [Specific] at 3.5.  I personally don't think that the extra Any is worth another half point, but perhaps it is.  Might list that one as unsure for now, but I guess it can't be less than 3.5

Consider wht happens if you apply the "any" bonus to the same attribute as the fixed +2.

Would changing the "any" to "any other" be enough to knock it down to 3 points?

[Morgenstern]

Not really. Choice of any, even from a list of 5, is still worth a bump.

[Morgenstern]

So at this point I think I'm ready to proces a few requests to test out the engine. Any unussual combinations folks have been jonesin' for in their designs?

[Krensky]

So at this point I think I'm ready to proces a few requests to test out the engine. Any unussual combinations folks have been jonesin' for in their designs?

Let me dig out my home brew race document for 2.0 and see if anything jumps out at me.

[Blankbeard]

Consider wht happens if you apply the "any" bonus to the same attribute as the fixed +2.

You end up with the +4/-2 pair like a dwarf.  OK, That makes sense.  Depending on how the fey/base move 40 thing shakes out it wouldn't be much of a problem for balancing. 

The real issue I see is with the orc.

 +3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –3 (Specific C) is currently listed as 4.0, the same as +3 (Specific A).

But +2 (Specific A) is listed as 2.5, while +2 (Any) and +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C) are both at 3.0

Shouldn't +3 (Any) and +3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –3 (Specific C) thus be at 4.5?

Also, it looks like +4 (Specific) would come in at 5.5   That's probably too much to use on a talent though.

Would +5 (Specific A), –5 (Specific B) come in at 3.5?  And I guess +2 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B) might fit in at 1.5. 

[Morgenstern]

The real issue I see is with the orc.

 +3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –3 (Specific C) is currently listed as 4.0, the same as +3 (Specific A).

Couple of factors at work there. The 4.0 bracket is slightly wider than the others, so a few edge cases that might otherwise be 4.5 are still treated as 4. It's also the highest I would allow (no packages with a value of 4.5 or higher tied up in attribute mods).

But +2 (Specific A) is listed as 2.5, while +2 (Any) and +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C) are both at 3.0

With +2 (specific)/- at 2.5, it follows that the "any" bump puts +2 (any)/- at 3.0.

Unbalanced stat packages (more + than -) pay a premium that increases with the amount they are unbalanced.

Unbalanced packages with no penalty at all pay that premium AND get bumped up .5 design points for having no downside whatsoever. So the costs of +1/-, +2/- and +3/- go up faster than +N/+N/-N.

Shouldn't +3 (Any) ... thus be at 4.5?

It would be, but again I would bar expenditures that high.

Also, it looks like +4 (Specific) would come in at 5.5   That's probably too much to use on a talent though.
Would +5 (Specific A), –5 (Specific B) come in at 3.5?  And I guess +2 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B) might fit in at 1.5.

I'll run those through the formulas and see what we get.

[Morgenstern]

Wow. Good estimates.

1.5 Design points
+2 (specific A)/-1 (Specific B)

3.5 Design Points
+5 (Specific A)/-5 (Specific B)

4 Design Points
+4 (Lower of Pair)


"+4 (Specific A)" is off-scale high and breaks.

[Blankbeard]

[0] Medium Folk, Reach 1
[4]  +3 Str, +3 Con -3 Int   
[2]  Always Ready
[-1] Banned Checks   
[1]  Enlightened Intimidate   
[1]  Enlightened Survival   
[1.5]Grueling Combatant   
[-1] Iconic Classes   
[-1] Light Sensitive   
6.5

That's what I get for the orc.  I've heard that orcs is "tricksy."  Or was that hobbits?  Anyway, all of the other talents and species balance.  I tried to attach the latest version of my equations to this post but the upload folder is full.  I don't think I"m 100% in sync with the wiki.  I know google docs doesn't work for you, so try this link to download it if it helps:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1016700/spec_calc.xls

[Morgenstern]

Orc (7 Points)
[4.0] +3 Strength, +3 Constitution, –3 Intelligence
[2.0] Always Ready
[1.0] Enlightened Intimidate
[1.0] Enlightened Survival
[1.5] Grueling Combatant
[-1.0] Banned Actions: Calm or Influence checks.
[-1.0] Iconic Classes: Burglar & Soldier
[-.5] Light-Sensitive

Goblin (7 Points)
[1.0] Small
[1.0] +2 Strength, –2 Charisma
[1.0] Agile Defense
[3.0] Ambush Basics
[1.0] Low-Light Vision
[2.0] Tenacious Spirit
[-0.5] Base Speed: 20 ft.
[-1.0] Iconic Classes: Lancer or Priest
[-0.5] Light-Sensitive

[Blankbeard]

Would +6 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B), –4 (Specific C) be 3 points or 3.5?
 
+6 (Specific A), –8 (Specific B) would be 2.5 (Although I think large values are too wonky for real use)
+6 (Specific A), –6 (Specific B) would be 4
+6 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B) would be 4.5 and broken.  I don't think I'd use any of these for anything, but I think I'm following the pattern.

A few more useful (hopefully)

0.5 Design points
+1 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B)

2 Design points
+3 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), -2 (Specific)

2.5 Design points
+3 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B), –1 (Specific C), –1 (Specific D)
+3 (Any), -3 (Any)

3 Design points
+4 (Specific A), –3 (Specific B)

3.5 Design points
+2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), +2(Specific C), –2 (Specific D), –2 (Specific E)  (Actually, I come up with 3 on this one, but 3.5 seems more reasonable.)
+3 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –1 (Specific D)

4 Design points
+4 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B)
+3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)

[Blankbeard]

Small being 1.0 throws Pech short.  The obvious solution is to make Hearty Appetite 1.0.

Might as well bring up what Mr A was talking about.  Currently, I have Fey and Base Speed 40 both being 1.  Base Speed 50 is currently 2.  Should Fey be 0.5 and BS 40 be 1.5?  That will change a couple other values, but they balance either way.

[Morgenstern]

Small being 1.0 throws Pech short.

There's a joke in there somewhere...

The obvious solution is to make Hearty Appetite 1.0.

In general Mastercraft shys away from N.5 values in favor of integers whenever possible.

Might as well bring up what Mr A was talking about.  Currently, I have Fey and Base Speed 40 both being 1.

That is correct for Mastercraft. Mr. A was using values from Spycraft, which were adjusted slightly in the Mastercraft revamp.

Base Speed 50 is currently 2.

Also correct for MC. Speed was much more highly valued/heavily weighted in Spycraft, where everythign playable was human for most of the game's history. It was more of a game of inches in that field.

[Morgenstern]

1 Design point
+1 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B) - note: this is the same cost as +1 (Specific A) and thus unlikely to see much use.

1.5 Design points
+3 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), -2 (Specific)

2.0 Design points
+3 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B), –1 (Specific C), –1 (Specific D)

2.5 Design points
+3 (Any), -3 (Any)

3.5 Design points
+4 (Specific A), –3 (Specific B) - Note: This is the same cost as +4/-2 and thus unlikely to see much use.
+2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), +2(Specific C), –2 (Specific D), –2 (Specific E)
+3 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –1 (Specific D)
+6 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B), –4 (Specific C)

4 Design points
+4 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B)
+3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
+6 (Specific A), –6 (Specific B)

Engine is producing solid results so far - the only one that actually required some contemplation was +4/-1, which prompted some close examination of the 3.5/4.0 boundary.