picking a class with lower than the required attributes

[Eashamahel]

I also just can't stress enough how LITTLE effect bumping up most attributes until they meet them 'Attribute Requirements' has on the game.

Say for instance you want to play an OCC that requires a PP of 14, but you rolled a 9. What's the difference between the two? Nothing. Changing that 9 to a 14 has NO mechanical effect on the game, and that character would be NO different whether they had the 9 or 14. It's possible that you could then take enough skills to gain a bonus to your PP that you wouldn't have been able to get with your original roll, but even that is unlikely (seeing as how you would need a +3 to your PP to get any advantage in this situation), and even more ridiculous with other non-physical attributes. Bumping an IQ score, for instance, to 12 or 14 (for example) to be able to play the OCC you wanted changes NOTHING.

When you consider it, the game has a mechanical system in place where many (if not most) characters rolled using that system will be severely limited in what can be done with them (what OCC's they can be), and yet there is no mechanical reason within the system for those limitations..

It get's even more backwards when you consider the order of creation. Say you roll a character with a PS of 10 who requires a 12 for the OCC you want. Well, since you weren't BORN strong enough to be that OCC, guess you can't possibly do ANYTHING to meet that requirement, like, I don't know, train for it?! You could then select an OCC without that PS requirement, take Bodybuilding/Weightlifting and then HAVE the PS you needed to be the OTHER one.

[Tor]

It is in their O.C.C. list in DBoNA.

I just thought of a solution. Clearly any Greot who becomes a Cyber-Knight was first a Sea Inquisitor. Dilemma averted.

Really anyone playing a character who has the equivalent of a elementary school education should have a requirement of an IQ of at least 5.

This used to be the IQ minimum for signing a Witch pact, though it got removed at some point.

The fact that the system even allows characters to be 'played' at the IQ 3 level is ridiculous, considering that (it's been awhile so I might be off on this) special education teachers will tell you that below 5(0), a person is capable of very little ('trainable' might have been the term? Though I think it was generally replaced with 'severely handicapped'), mostly they should be capable of looking after cleaning themselves provided they are in a sheltered environment.

It's less of a problem now that RUE has introduced penalties for low attributes. Would you make them more extensive?

The idea that a character could have an IQ of 3 and an MA of 20.. yeesh.

I have no problem with this. People trust babies, which seem pretty stupid (while intelligent, they're so unaccomplished to be equally as ignorant as someone lacking intelligence) and you could certainly be intimidated by a giant dumb monster.

I think part of the problem is the idea that someone could do both. Intimidation should be linked to HF in some way, I think, just as trust should be linked to Awe Factors.

[Eashamahel]

You could be intimidated by a giant dumb monster, or a Grizzly Bear, but that is an act of physical intimidation (more akin to Horror Factor) and the recognition of danger, not the social act of intimidation. Similarly, I usually 'trust' my houseplants in the same way I 'trust' a baby, in that I don't see it as being capable of deception (or much else) and also feel no potential threat from it, as both again lack nearly any social ability.

I actually think I do remember the IQ minimum for the Witch, which is funny, as that's the minimum required for the person signing the pact to be actually aware of what they are doing/responsible for their actions in an intelligent way.

As for attributes linked to abilities like Horror Factor, many attributes should be linked to skills. Unfortunately, until Attributes enter the 'exceptional' level (17+) many of them do absolutely nothing. I realize this is less so the case in the Ultimate Edition due to the negatives imposed on super low attributes, but does little to solve the actual problem. Consider the attribute range of 9-15. This is a pretty wide range, a character with a 9 would be thought to be low average/pretty normal, whereas if a character has a 15, they must be pretty good at whatever that stat is, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Except for attributes that offer mechanical systems such as PS (the main one) and Speed and PE (to a much lesser extent), others have no bearing until they reach either exceptional level or fall into the crippling low numbers.

Some such as PB can be roll played. Your character has a PB and MA of 15, mine of 9. It's clear yours is better looking than mine, and when our characters interact with other characters and NPCs that could come into play (though however it does is entirely at the discretion of the GM, as it doesn't actually offer us any chance of mechanically effecting the game), just like MA could as both our characters could say the same thing, and the GM could rule that yours is believed more ably than mine, but again, that's completely arbitrary. The only mechanical system for determining the difference between our interactions with others is at the 'exceptional' level (and even those are terribly explained).

It gets worse with attributes that have NO basis in the mechanics or role-played moments until the exceptional area. If your character has a PP of 15 to my 10, we could say that yours is more graceful/dextrous than mine, but how? Imagine if you actually made those two characters the exact same, with the same skills. We would both dance and cartwheel and fight with the EXACT same level of ability, and the GM would say that you do it more 'gracefully' than I, as your PP is higher. Is it really? It is numerically, but in no way mechanically. Will you succeed a Pick Pocket roll where I fail because of your higher stat? Nope. What about a Dance roll, or jumping kick? If our two characters are excatly the same in every action or skill that could concievably rely on Prowess, would other characters/NPCs even KNOW that your attribute is higher than mine? IQ works the exact same way. If we had the same numbers for IQ that we have for PP, would it in any way effect the game? Would you have a higher chance of succeeding at skills or learning new things? Would you come up with better plans? How much better? There is no mechanical system for that stat to matter.

Really, any stat between 'abysmal' and 'exceptional' in Palladium that does not have a direct mechanical component (like PS) could be classified under 1-Poor (8,9,10), 2-Average (11,12,13), 3-Good(14,15,16) and NOTHING would change. If I handed you a character sheet with attributes were written as:

IQ-Good, ME-Poor, MA-23, PS-14, PP-Average, PE-8, PB-Average, Spd-17

Would that have any negative impact on you playing that character? All the key information is there for you for any Role-Playing specific notes ('I have an Average PB, so I don't stand out', 'I have a Good IQ so I come up with an idea') and it has no negative effect on the mechanics of the game. The only other attribute that MIGHT need a number attached to it could be PP in case you were selecting skills to try and raise it to Exceptional level (which you should know you can't as there likely aren't enough bonuses to get an Average roll to the 17+ Exceptional level for Prowess), and this isn't a concern for non-physical skills who do not usually have the ability to be raised.

If such a huge part of the mechanics of attributes can be cut/simplified in such a way (something like 8/18 possible numbers, or 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 [though 16 matters when first rolling SOME characters]), does the system seem like it might not be working as well as it could be?


-note: you don't actually need to read past here, this is just me continuing my ranting and raving just a bit longer-

I'm currently reading Splynn again, as a friend just gave it back to me, and I just passed the T-Archer. This character might be a GREAT example of the overly complicatedness of Palladium's Attribute system and how ultimately it matters SO little.

So, the T-Archer is supposed to be a super dextrous assassin/sniper guy who is tested for hand to eye coordination and has crazy skills. Got it, now lets check out how this works.

First of all (in my copy at least) the character has, under No.5 for special powers and abilities, RCC bonuses (which MUST mean OCC bonuses, as the Archer is an OCC, but anyways) including +2 to Physical Prowess, which must represent the crazy coordination they have. Seems reasonable, hey, your archer is super dextrous, and here's a bonus representing that.

Moving on, we see the character has an Attribute Requirement of PP-14. Really? So you have to have rolled a 14+ on your initial roll to even select the class, and THEN you get a bonus to the stat from your RCC(OCC) bonuses of +2, all of which results in...16. Not even enough to matter. So this super elite character who is restricted only to those with exceptional coordination ends up with a minimum of 16? WHY NOT 17?! 17 has bonuses! 17 is actually exceptional! The 'average' T-Archer is ONE POINT away from mattering in the Prowess stat. One point!

The system puts a huge limitation on a minimum Prowess that is very high (for 3D6) and then gives an ADDITIONAL bonus to it, and that all doesn't come together to guarantee the stat means anything? If the stat doesn't HAVE to mean something (because it's not 'exceptional') why can't my T-Archer have a PP of 11? There is NO difference between 11 and 16.

Of course, if you were making the character in order, you would have already rolled up your stats, then added the RCC(OCC) bonuses under No.5, and said bonuses might have allowed you to more easily meet the Attribute Requirements listed a page later in the OCC description, but then you would be doing it wrong, as you must be able to select the OCC before getting the RCC(OCC) bonuses, but you might not realize that at first, thinking characters were supposed to be made in some kind of systematic order... but that's an entirely other subject.

[Tor]

Could be wrong but I recall the PP stat being added during some kind of grappling competition in combat... not sure if I'm mixing it up with a Rifter though.

[Pepsi Jedi]

You could be intimidated by a giant dumb monster, or a Grizzly Bear, but that is an act of physical intimidation (more akin to Horror Factor) and the recognition of danger, not the social act of intimidation. Similarly, I usually 'trust' my houseplants in the same way I 'trust' a baby, in that I don't see it as being capable of deception (or much else) and also feel no potential threat from it, as both again lack nearly any social ability.

I actually think I do remember the IQ minimum for the Witch, which is funny, as that's the minimum required for the person signing the pact to be actually aware of what they are doing/responsible for their actions in an intelligent way.

As for attributes linked to abilities like Horror Factor, many attributes should be linked to skills. Unfortunately, until Attributes enter the 'exceptional' level (17+) many of them do absolutely nothing. I realize this is less so the case in the Ultimate Edition due to the negatives imposed on super low attributes, but does little to solve the actual problem. Consider the attribute range of 9-15. This is a pretty wide range, a character with a 9 would be thought to be low average/pretty normal, whereas if a character has a 15, they must be pretty good at whatever that stat is, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Except for attributes that offer mechanical systems such as PS (the main one) and Speed and PE (to a much lesser extent), others have no bearing until they reach either exceptional level or fall into the crippling low numbers.

Some such as PB can be roll played. Your character has a PB and MA of 15, mine of 9. It's clear yours is better looking than mine, and when our characters interact with other characters and NPCs that could come into play (though however it does is entirely at the discretion of the GM, as it doesn't actually offer us any chance of mechanically effecting the game), just like MA could as both our characters could say the same thing, and the GM could rule that yours is believed more ably than mine, but again, that's completely arbitrary. The only mechanical system for determining the difference between our interactions with others is at the 'exceptional' level (and even those are terribly explained).

It gets worse with attributes that have NO basis in the mechanics or role-played moments until the exceptional area. If your character has a PP of 15 to my 10, we could say that yours is more graceful/dextrous than mine, but how? Imagine if you actually made those two characters the exact same, with the same skills. We would both dance and cartwheel and fight with the EXACT same level of ability, and the GM would say that you do it more 'gracefully' than I, as your PP is higher. Is it really? It is numerically, but in no way mechanically. Will you succeed a Pick Pocket roll where I fail because of your higher stat? Nope. What about a Dance roll, or jumping kick? If our two characters are excatly the same in every action or skill that could concievably rely on Prowess, would other characters/NPCs even KNOW that your attribute is higher than mine? IQ works the exact same way. If we had the same numbers for IQ that we have for PP, would it in any way effect the game? Would you have a higher chance of succeeding at skills or learning new things? Would you come up with better plans? How much better? There is no mechanical system for that stat to matter.

Really, any stat between 'abysmal' and 'exceptional' in Palladium that does not have a direct mechanical component (like PS) could be classified under 1-Poor (8,9,10), 2-Average (11,12,13), 3-Good(14,15,16) and NOTHING would change. If I handed you a character sheet with attributes were written as:

IQ-Good, ME-Poor, MA-23, PS-14, PP-Average, PE-8, PB-Average, Spd-17

Would that have any negative impact on you playing that character? All the key information is there for you for any Role-Playing specific notes ('I have an Average PB, so I don't stand out', 'I have a Good IQ so I come up with an idea') and it has no negative effect on the mechanics of the game. The only other attribute that MIGHT need a number attached to it could be PP in case you were selecting skills to try and raise it to Exceptional level (which you should know you can't as there likely aren't enough bonuses to get an Average roll to the 17+ Exceptional level for Prowess), and this isn't a concern for non-physical skills who do not usually have the ability to be raised.

If such a huge part of the mechanics of attributes can be cut/simplified in such a way (something like 8/18 possible numbers, or 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 [though 16 matters when first rolling SOME characters]), does the system seem like it might not be working as well as it could be?


-note: you don't actually need to read past here, this is just me continuing my ranting and raving just a bit longer-

I'm currently reading Splynn again, as a friend just gave it back to me, and I just passed the T-Archer. This character might be a GREAT example of the overly complicatedness of Palladium's Attribute system and how ultimately it matters SO little.

So, the T-Archer is supposed to be a super dextrous assassin/sniper guy who is tested for hand to eye coordination and has crazy skills. Got it, now lets check out how this works.

First of all (in my copy at least) the character has, under No.5 for special powers and abilities, RCC bonuses (which MUST mean OCC bonuses, as the Archer is an OCC, but anyways) including +2 to Physical Prowess, which must represent the crazy coordination they have. Seems reasonable, hey, your archer is super dextrous, and here's a bonus representing that.

Moving on, we see the character has an Attribute Requirement of PP-14. Really? So you have to have rolled a 14+ on your initial roll to even select the class, and THEN you get a bonus to the stat from your RCC(OCC) bonuses of +2, all of which results in...16. Not even enough to matter. So this super elite character who is restricted only to those with exceptional coordination ends up with a minimum of 16? WHY NOT 17?! 17 has bonuses! 17 is actually exceptional! The 'average' T-Archer is ONE POINT away from mattering in the Prowess stat. One point!

The system puts a huge limitation on a minimum Prowess that is very high (for 3D6) and then gives an ADDITIONAL bonus to it, and that all doesn't come together to guarantee the stat means anything? If the stat doesn't HAVE to mean something (because it's not 'exceptional') why can't my T-Archer have a PP of 11? There is NO difference between 11 and 16.

Of course, if you were making the character in order, you would have already rolled up your stats, then added the RCC(OCC) bonuses under No.5, and said bonuses might have allowed you to more easily meet the Attribute Requirements listed a page later in the OCC description, but then you would be doing it wrong, as you must be able to select the OCC before getting the RCC(OCC) bonuses, but you might not realize that at first, thinking characters were supposed to be made in some kind of systematic order... but that's an entirely other subject.

You're not wrong.

Thing is, as player's you're "Supposed" To play out those differences. yes mechanically, having an IQ of 3 is no different than having an IQ of 14 in palladium, but as a player, you're "Supposed" To play out having an extremely low IQ, or Low MA (Being rude and a jerk) or Low ME (Being weak willed and easily manipulated).

I've been running an HU Game recently here. My son plays in it. he's a mutant. Thought it was awesome when he made it. A few games in he showed up to "Help" In an emergency, and ended up being attacked by the crowd, 1) Mutants are not well received in HU canon, and we were playing in Century City, and 2) He had a low MA.

He was pretty surprised when the crowd started pelting him with trash and screaming at the "Mutie freak". As the scene went on, I made an effort to sort of explain in character why people felt that way. (It helped that the NPC I had on the team. I.E. I was 'playing" to help the group if need be, was an Alien and was getting it even worse.)

But yeah. Long story short, the Players -are supposed- to play out the differences in Attributes, and the GM --is-- supposed to know such things about the PC's and yeah, take it into account. The guy with PB of 3 trying to sweet talk a lady should get rebuffed at best, if not vomited on. People with low MA's are going to end up in fights all the time because they're just D-bags and bouncers and guards and even mothers in the grocery store are going to give them greif.

I actually see problems the 'other way' more than I see the 'low stats' affecting (Or -not- affecting) People.

Playing in a Mage the Ascension game once (( Different system I know)) There was a guy playing a Son of Ether. On his character sheet he had an Intelligence score of 5. We're talking Bobby Fisher/Einstein type level of IQ. But the guy couldn't pull it off. Not even close. In one scene he tried to get swarmy with my character, (An Established Son of Ether). Talking about how smart he was and how maybe one day my character would get his brilliance. (He'd seen my sheet and knew my character "Only" Had an Intelligence of 4. Still very gifted but not "Best humanity could have to offer" level). Then went on at length about how he worked in the field of Solar Power and how using other stuff was stupid.

The game was set in Seattle. Where it rains close to 300 days a year and is overcast more than that. My character, naturally, pointed this out. And about 6 other people in the scene, naturally cracked up.

The PLAYER just didn't have the juice to play that level of intelligence. (Yeah some times you can fake smarter than you are... but some people.. .can't.))

[Tor]

Solar Power could be used to power Seattle if you simply sent the energy there from other locations that weren't raining all the time. He wasn't out of line.

[Eashamahel]

Solar power aside, we as players aren't really capable of representing characters with social or mental attributes very far beyond our own. We really aren't capable of representing anything beyond us, but yet my entirely non-mechanically minded friends can be Operators and my non-physically trained friends can have Boxing and PS scores of 26, all because there is a system set up for them to use. It works with IQ (and other social and mental attributes as well) because you get a bonus. Eventually. But until then, you are just somehow 'smarter' in some way that you can't accurately represent, with no mechanics to fall back on, and everyone playing just has to use the 'wink and nudge' system to UNDERSTAND that Bill with his IQ of 14 is smarter than Bob with his IQ of 11.

Probably the worst attribute in the system is Physical Prowess. It's the only Physical stat that has NO mechanical system except when it gets to exceptional levels, and at that point has more ability to alter/improve a character than nearly any other stat. Every other physical stat has every point mattering. Prowess is mind boggling.

We've had games where a player's character has Pro:Dance, Pick Pockets, Prowl, Gymnastics, HtH:Martial Arts, ect and (due to not showing each other character sheets) just assumed that character had a high-ish prowess (they had a 10) as they were graceful and such in every meaningful way. They constantly out-danced another character (who had a prowess of 14+, maybe 17) and generally outperformed them in every meaningful way (and we all ended up assuming this other character had an average prowess). And then when we eventually started talking about/revealing character sheets and stats, we were all, well, not surprised, but just amused. Here we had two characters, with Bill (let's use that again) showing more 'prowess' in every conceivable way, but wink-wink-nudge, Bob's the one with the higher stat, and that somehow matters and people should notice.


While the conversation is kind of open, I have to wonder, in the Ultimate Edition there are negatives for low stats. Are those well thought out? I mean, according to that system, should every animal (with 'IQ-1D6 high animal intelligence' for example) have negatives applied to it's skills? I realize that the answer is 'no, they shouldn't', but according to the system do they?

And one more attribute based question, in the Ultimate Edition (or ANY other Palladium rulebook) has it ever been explained HOW exceptional MA/PB is supposed to be used with the Charm/Impress and Trust/Intimidate percentages?

[ShadowLogan]

And one more attribute based question, in the Ultimate Edition (or ANY other Palladium rulebook) has it ever been explained HOW exceptional MA/PB is supposed to be used with the Charm/Impress and Trust/Intimidate percentages?

IIRC there is something buried in Ninja's and Super Spies somewhere (Martial Arts Powers/Katas?), but I don't have that book to look it up exactly, but it is there when I filliped through someone else s copy in the past (and IINM others have mentioned). It would be nice to see how it is supposed to work though.

Historically my group has just used the bonus to those as the base skill of the N/PC as if it was "Performance" or similar skill.

should every animal (with 'IQ-1D6 high animal intelligence' for example) have negatives applied to it's skills? I realize that the answer is 'no, they shouldn't', but according to the system do they?

I do not think they would for IQ, or any other attribute that has a descriptive qualifier (Super Natural, Augmented, etc) as those are for normal attributes. A 2d6 Animal Intelligence is NOT the same as 2d6 Normal Intelligence.

[Eashamahel]

Oh, I know they are not the same, I was just wondering if the rules were actually thought out and whether this was actually mentioned at all.

[Athos]

Just raise the required attribute to the minimum required by the class. I'm not aware of any class that required attributes high enough to get bonuses, so raising, for instance, PE from 9 to 12 in order to be a Temporal Wizard is a non-issue in my opinion. The 3 extra HP and 3 PPE isn't going to unbalance the game in the least.

--flatline

I think this is a good way to play it. Usually in campaigns I have played in, people roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, or they reroll 1's or have some other way of insuring PCs get decent character stats. Most GMs let you arrange your rolls, so you can put your high scores where you need them for the OCC you want.

But I was in one campaign that did things very old school and made you roll 3d6 and not arrange them. This made things VERY difficult for one player that rolled very low and ended up playing an operator. He made the GM regret this by building a missile launcher onto his armor and blasting volleys at all the GM's toughest monsters making it easy for the rest of us to pick up the pieces. Just goes to show, you can't keep a strong player down, lol...

[Athos]

I think an interesting thing to do would be the gm comes with a number of prerolled character stats (no occ) and just gives them to the group and they try and divy them out and get as many occs that they want as they can.

This is kind of what I have started doing...

I let every player roll up a set of attributes, then whichever roll is the best, everyone gets to use those scores and arrange as they wish. This makes starting characters more balanced. I would prefer a point buy, but I don't think that is practical with Rifts.

Obviously if a character has a 2d6 attribute, you drop the lowest from the score, if he has a 4d6, you add an additional die, etc. So the characters don't have EXACTLY the same scores, especially when you put in skills, but at least they are in the same ballpark.

[PSI-Lence]

going through old posts and for npc's i always kept a hard line as the stat's i rolled i kept as what i had to use (though it makes it easier when you are making 10+ at a time)
even for my characters in other games i prefer to keep my stats straight roll's, it's rifts, i'd expect to see vagabonds much more often than a stone master with IQ 12+ ME 14+ and PE 16+ (which is one of the highest stat requirement's i can remember ever seeing , but also expected more of atlantian's than normal humans)

with players i tend to let them roll 3 full set's of stats at most , after that if they are still lacking the requirement's to be what they want with all three set's (i do not let them mix and match, you roll what you roll) then if it is a physical stat i will let them take physical skills to raise it, (i also have some house rule skills for razing mental attributes) if they still do not meet the minimum (or for some reason they would not fit taking the skills that would raise them high enough) i will try working out some work around to let them take the occ

if they wanted to be something like a military specialist but was short by 1 on the IQ then i'd be happy to let them take the job if they took military etiquette perhaps (either representing military family connections or just knowing the right way to suck up and who to suck up to) or something as simple as starting with 1/2 the normal credits and 1D4 x 100 credits less each month if they bribed an officer and kept the kick backs coming out of their salary

[McFacemelt]

One method I used on players was if the stat could be raised via skills, and they did not meet the class requirements, they could continue to make the character but only if minimums were met by picking the skills needed to hit them. This obviously doesn't always work, and when it doesn't I usually just bump the stat.

Let your player's play what they want to play because playing is a lot more fun than no one rolling a character because they are too busy whining, and a GM should be more concerned with making his players cry for what he has done to the precious PCs that they love than never GMing at all.

[Giant2005]

I'm currently reading Splynn again, as a friend just gave it back to me, and I just passed the T-Archer. This character might be a GREAT example of the overly complicatedness of Palladium's Attribute system and how ultimately it matters SO little.

So, the T-Archer is supposed to be a super dextrous assassin/sniper guy who is tested for hand to eye coordination and has crazy skills. Got it, now lets check out how this works.

First of all (in my copy at least) the character has, under No.5 for special powers and abilities, RCC bonuses (which MUST mean OCC bonuses, as the Archer is an OCC, but anyways) including +2 to Physical Prowess, which must represent the crazy coordination they have. Seems reasonable, hey, your archer is super dextrous, and here's a bonus representing that.

Moving on, we see the character has an Attribute Requirement of PP-14. Really? So you have to have rolled a 14+ on your initial roll to even select the class, and THEN you get a bonus to the stat from your RCC(OCC) bonuses of +2, all of which results in...16. Not even enough to matter. So this super elite character who is restricted only to those with exceptional coordination ends up with a minimum of 16? WHY NOT 17?! 17 has bonuses! 17 is actually exceptional! The 'average' T-Archer is ONE POINT away from mattering in the Prowess stat. One point!

The system puts a huge limitation on a minimum Prowess that is very high (for 3D6) and then gives an ADDITIONAL bonus to it, and that all doesn't come together to guarantee the stat means anything? If the stat doesn't HAVE to mean something (because it's not 'exceptional') why can't my T-Archer have a PP of 11? There is NO difference between 11 and 16.

Of course, if you were making the character in order, you would have already rolled up your stats, then added the RCC(OCC) bonuses under No.5, and said bonuses might have allowed you to more easily meet the Attribute Requirements listed a page later in the OCC description, but then you would be doing it wrong, as you must be able to select the OCC before getting the RCC(OCC) bonuses, but you might not realize that at first, thinking characters were supposed to be made in some kind of systematic order... but that's an entirely other subject.

16 is exceptional and gives a bonus of +1 to strike, parry and dodge.

[Eashamahel]

16 is exceptional and gives a bonus of +1 to strike, parry and dodge.

Close. It does as of R:UE, but when Splyn first came out, it did not, as the original RMB started attribute bonuses at 17.

So yeah, huge system, bonuses to attributes, unlikely rolls, and the minimum requirement still did nothing.

[Nekira Sudacne]

So if they don't have the proper attributes, they throw that sheet of paper away and roll till they get the right combo.

That is what the rules say to do.

It's just a rarely followed rule.

That dosn't make bumping up attributes to minimum not a houserule.

That would be pretty aggravating considering how long it could take to reroll until you got numbers that would let you meet the requirements for a particular class you wanted, instead of simply raising your first set of rolls to the minimum where needed to get the class right then and there.

It's a common houserule for exactly that reason. heck, i've been known to bump up attributes myself.

I just don't consider it the offical way to make characters.

[Eashamahel]

Well, the 'official' way to make characters requires some impressive jumps in reasoning, so it's not like it should be held up as some perfectly thought out system that has all the answers.

[Razzinold]

Another way you can go about handling this is by working it into the character's back story.

Years ago I wanted to play a PSI-Slinger but I didn't meet the P.P. minimum (after taking some skills I was like 1 or 2 points off still) so the GM agreed to let me play but left my stat as it was if I agreed to incorporate it into my story some how.

What I did was I explained how he was in the right place at the right time (standing over the body of a famous gunslinger) and people just assumed that I had killed him (even though I was going over to help him) and just sort of built a reputation from there. I made sure my name was always being whispered and soon it turned into such a massive PR thing that I was getting credit for all kinds of kills I never made. My reputation became so large that most people didn't even challenge me and when they did I sued my psionics to compensate for being slower then they were.
Most times the stories/HF were enough to keep other true gunslingers away and I was fast enough to handle regular people (even without psionics).

[Eashamahel]

Sounds legit, i've often had people work stats into their character's backstory. PB4 = hideously scarred PP6= hands are crippled, high PS= character is larger than normal, ect.


Really though, once you realize that there is NO game effect on playing a character who doesn't meet the required attribute, as there are hardly ANY attribute requirements that have ANY effect on the game, you see just how pointless they are. When you get to 'suggested' attributes, it gets REALLY pointless. 'suggested a high ME', well, what the heck is a 'high' ME? What does it do for this character? how does it matter? What are the downsides? Usually, it does nothing, doesn't matter, and has no downside.

[Razzinold]

Sounds legit, i've often had people work stats into their character's backstory. PB4 = hideously scarred PP6= hands are crippled, high PS= character is larger than normal, ect.


Really though, once you realize that there is NO game effect on playing a character who doesn't meet the required attribute, as there are hardly ANY attribute requirements that have ANY effect on the game, you see just how pointless they are. When you get to 'suggested' attributes, it gets REALLY pointless. 'suggested a high ME', well, what the heck is a 'high' ME? What does it do for this character? how does it matter? What are the downsides? Usually, it does nothing, doesn't matter, and has no downside.

Yeah I thought the GM made a fair call, I didn't have a high enough stat but put some work into a back story so he allowed it. However once we started playing things changed a little bit, my reputation would only carry me so far (I mean it helped a lot but then there is always the guy who wants to take down the guy with the big rep so he'll have an even bigger one) and the times I did have to go up against someone better I had a technique that he would practice to give him just enough of an edge with out anyone noticing I didn't have blinding speed on my draw.
What I would do was target the guy's gun with TK and kind of way it down in his holster for a second or two (just enough to get the drop on him) and then release it. This way he did get to draw his gun, just not before I did

[Eashamahel]

You could have just simul'd every attack, allowing a character with a PP of 2 and -10 on initiative just as much draw speed and ranged accuracy as the greatest of Gunslingers Not that you should, or that making the game work like that is good, just that it's a funny option.

[flatline]

You could have just simul'd every attack, allowing a character with a PP of 2 and -10 on initiative just as much draw speed and ranged accuracy as the greatest of Gunslingers Not that you should, or that making the game work like that is good, just that it's a funny option.

Some of us have "fixed" the simultaneous attack rules...

--flatline

[Razzinold]

You could have just simul'd every attack, allowing a character with a PP of 2 and -10 on initiative just as much draw speed and ranged accuracy as the greatest of Gunslingers Not that you should, or that making the game work like that is good, just that it's a funny option.

I could have done that (and have done so in the past when I was a Plains Borg) but that would have destroyed the illusion that I was faster on the draw then them and then people would start to doubt my reputation and that would paint an even bigger target on my back.

I also had my character constantly train on my quick draw and simultaneous draw/tk trick so the GM let me improve through that as well, plus I think I managed to snag another physical skill after I went up a couple of levels.

At one point I was thinking of getting either one or both arms replaced with bionics (covered in flesh to pass for human) so I could be really fast on the draw but never got around to it before switching to another story line/character.