Jump to content

Sister Cat

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Sister Cat

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Beech Bluff, Tennessee, United States
  1. MILLANDSON said: Now, to me, there doesn't seem to be all that many differences between the two True. Neither the Emperor or his followers are what could truly be called "good people". There are some who believe, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, that the Emperor is in fact the fifth Chaos God. And with the way the Warp works, giving form to the hopes, dreams, and fears of mortal minds ... who's to say that after 10,000 years of fervent worship by a large hunk of humanity that the Emperor hasn't become a god, even if he wasn't originally?
  2. Hmmm ... I still have to agree with Lucius that I prefer a class-less/level-less system. But ... I do agree that it places an extraordinary burden on the GM, to fairly (balance-wise) adjudicate all advances taken. I am torn ... but I still like the flexibility of the system(s) I have come to love. I don't know ... perhaps I am - after all - lucky in my current group of players. While they WILL power-game - if I let them - they are singularly dedicated to interesting characters, and their backstories. So for newer GM's, and younger players (or those GM's who are not intimately familiar with their current group of players), I can see the need for the structure of a class/level-based system. I still don't like or prefer it ... but I can see the need for it. *sighs* Gamer-life sucks, sometimes.
  3. Long answer, almost the same as the short answer. The only real difference is "Alternate Ranks". If you take one of these, the normal career rank that you trade in for it is no longer available to you normally ... though you can purchase advancements from the rank you gave up as Elite Advances.
  4. Once again, I have to agree with Lucius here. In my experience, the class/level-based systems tend to create bland, cookie-cutter characters, while the greater leeway of a class-less, level/rank-less system tends to inspire my players to new heights of character concept and development. And ... that is including my more "gamist" players, who always look for technical advantages. Granted, my players are all decent RP'ers, but some of them are still more "gamist" than others. Even then, however, they seem to come into their own RP greatness much more quickly in less restrictive game settings. It is my belief that this is because such systems allow them to to really exercise their creative "juices" when creating their character ... without worrying about how the system may "gimp" them for their creative choices. As my friend Kage is fond of saying, though, YMMV.
  5. This seems like a reasonable alternative. For more on my thoughts on this topic, please see LuciusT's thread in House Rules, http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=100&efcid=3&efidt=409234
  6. LuciusT said: Characteristics: All characteristics start at 25 (unless modified by homeworld). Characters recieve 70 points to distribute among their characterisitcs, with no more than 15 points assigned to any one characteristic. (Alternatively, if you prefer die rolling, generated attribute by the RAW and then allow the player to increase any 3 characterisitcs by 5.) All characteristics are advanced using the 250/500 advance scheme. Starting Skill and Talents: Existing starting career packages are available as "templates." Players may choose one career template and gain the starting skills, talents and gear from that template. GMs may create additional templates to suit their campaign needs. Advances (the simple method): All advances cost 100 exp. The GM may designated certain advances (for example Forbidden Lore or all Psy talents) as restricted and available only at higher cost. Starting characters recieve (for example) 400 exp to purchace any advance for which they meet the prerequisites, subject to the GMs approval. All advances puchased in play require an in-character justification for their purchase (as per the RAW elite advance rules). The GM is final arbiter for determining if the justification is sufficent. Advances (the complex method): For GMs with concerns about the relative "balance" of certain advances, the game could have a designated "power level" based on the average experience points of the characters. This could be as finely graded as the 1-8 rank scheme or a broader scheme (for example Recruit (0-1999), Acolyte (2000-7999), Trusted Acolyte (8000-14999), Throne Agent(1500+)). Certain advances are designated as have a specificed power level as an additional prerequisite (for example Swift Attack might have an additional prerequisite of Acolyte). Only a character in a game of that power level may purchase that advance. Otherwise, the purchase of advances follows the same guidlines outlined in the simple method above. Pretty simple, but that's the point. This is intended to be a highly flexible, campaign driven system. It does require a social contract between the GM and players, to the effect that everyone agrees to be fair, to cooperate and to not make the game about who can make the toughest, most game dominating character. Personally, I consider that sort of social contract essential for any good rpg. Actually, I like this. But on the off-chance that you are interested ... here is what I have been cooking up in my "admittedly addled" mind: I would allow characters to choose their attribute advances as follows: 3 fast progression ((100/250/etc.), 3 median progression (250/500/etc.), and 3 slow progression (500/750/etc.). I would then put together a complete list of all Skills and Talents, and their cost - based on their relative utility, as well as the relative time (in the campaign) that I believe they should become available ... this part would allow earlier acquisition of these, but only (based on the higher XP cost) at the expense of other more "in-line" advancements that most characters would (at least in my mind) choose. And, of course, there would be "origin-packages" and "alternate career packages" that create exceptions to this linear progression. I agree completely with the "point-buy" characteristics purchase, and I also agree with the starting "templates" idea for starting skills/talents and equipment. I just have to come up with a coherent ... and fair ... Skills/Talents list, and their costs. Regardless of that, I think it's a great idea.
  7. Xisor said: That is: go for it. These little 'tweaks' (well measured Elite Advances) will add far more to the game than they will detract. Don't go overboard with them, but Weapon Training (Bolter) is not likely a problem! Agreed. For what it's worth, my method is: If it is an advance they would normally gain access to later, then I just tack on 50 xp to the cost, assuming they have worked, in-game, to acquire it, and it makes at least a little sense for their character - as they have played it. If it is something they normally wouldn't get at all, then I base the cost on two things - the advance's relative utility, and how well they have played acquiring it in-game. I don't have a hard, fast formula for these. But I will often look at when other careers may acquire the given advance, and how much it costs them, etc. In any case, I find moderate use of elite advances for my players makes for more interesting and well-rounded characters. I tend to agree with LuciusT and Peacekeeper_b that the whole career/rank structure is broken, and could use a complete revamp, if not a complete dump and start over with a career-less, rank-less system. But I haven't had the time to work out a playable alternative on my own time, so ...
  8. Now that is an interesting idea. It doesn't seem unbalanced at first blush, and it would give a little more incentive for those neurotically-cautious players to do something truly spectacular ... knowing that even if they have to "burn" their last fate point to survive, it will only give them more chance to wiggle out of a bad situation later. Of course, I can see those glory hogs potentially abusing it ... at least until they run out of permanent fate points. But this just means that "fate" will eventually catch up to them. I think it might work. I'll have to bring this up with my players, and see if they'd like to try it. Thanks for sharing.
  9. I have to agree with you whole-heartedly here, Peacekeeper_b. The Skills distribution and pricing is just BROKEN in DH. I agree that the Basic Skills mechanic can work fine in some limited situations. However ... taking into account the average characteristic of a starting PC (around 30), then not counting situational modifiers, you're looking at a base 15% chance of success on Basic Skills. This troubles me. I am thinking ... if I don't completely redesign the Career Path tables, then I may just give Basic Skills a -10, rather than the Half-Base-Characteristic trope. Granted, I am still undecided ... but this thread is leading me toward such a decision. Thank you for bringing it up.
  10. still ... trying ... to ... interpret ... your ... modern ... texting ... jargon ... But if I understand your question correctly, then ... my first recommendation would be ... Templar Calix (sp?), from Inquisitor's Handbook. The one that played with me in my last game was a melee GOD!!! He eclipsed my Sororitas, and even the Moritat Assassin with twin Lathe Blades!
  11. Friend of the Dork said: IIRC you don't have a seperate mailbox here, PMs from the forums are redirected to your registered email. Yep. That's the way I've always received them.
  12. Eisenhorn, Ravenor, Scourge the Heretic, Innocence Proves Nothing, to name a few.
  13. LuciusT said: Peacekeeper_b said: And the best reason why the didnt use the D20 system was..... they didnt want the game to suck. Wow, too bad they failed then. On a more productive note. Seriously, Lucius? I know the 3 games have their problems, especially when it comes to compatibility. But I wouldn't say they suck.
  14. For most of the reasons above, and because the d20 system just is not conducive to the "feel" of the 40K universe, imo.
  15. Okay, I can buy that. But that is also an argument for why the devs left it kind of vague/abstract because, for example: I see a horde of insects, even a puny M10 horde, having literally thousands of bugs, or at the very least, hundreds. I see a horde of, say rats (or other small nuisance beasts), also M10, as having at least several tens of individuals. ... etc., etc. Of course, you may see it differently, so ... With that in mind, I think I am more inclined to just "wing it" based on each encounter. I still like your idea. But I can't see it being "set in stone" across all possible permutations of a horde, imo.
  • Create New...