(could be) A silly question: ATOW = 4th Ed MW:RPG?

[Jackmc]

I don't have the book in front of me right now but I know that a 7 = +1 while a 4 = -1

You're a little off.  Att <=3 is a -1.  An Att in the 7 -9 is a +1 while a 10 is a +2.

Another modifier is that Clan characters with the appropriate phenotype get a -1 to all relevant skills.  So a Jade Falcon trueborn asf would have say a 3/4 skill level while a Ghost Bear fighter jock would be a 4/5 (assuming the same number of skill points) since the Bears don't have the asf phenotype.

-Jackmc

[Cannon_Fodder]

Attributes not calculating into BT gunnery and piliting is why my group just doesn't bother converting back. We use AToW skill checks for company on company (or more) sized 'Mech fights.

[Daryk]

Well according to Paul they don't.  Which I can understand in a way.  It is wonky enough that negative Total Warfare Gunnery and Piloting ratings are possible even without them.

Can you point me to where he said that?  I scanned the rules forum and didn't see it this morning.

[monbvol]

There are a few posts by him in the thread where this comes from but that particular post I've linked to is probably the most relevant.

[Daryk]

Thanks!  I totally missed that thread when it was active.

[monbvol]

No problem.

[Paul]

Yeah, the concern was that it'd be too easy to skip past a net 0, between skill, attribute modifiers, and the base TN.

Of course, the people who actually have attributes to gain positive modifiers are rare in the universe, and the system is intended to create exceptional people, not average people. Most any player characters *should* be serious problems right out of the gate, with a high propensity towards natural talent.

It's a game about heroes. Not about joe randoms. If you want to make those, you can, just make sure to drop the starting XP, and invest poorly in attributes.

Paul

[Wombat]

...or take the Guerrilla warfare lifepath with a specialization for Free Rasalhague Republic and you automatically are missing a limb!

[A. Lurker]

Seems to me that if the combination of high skill and high attributes is considered a-ok in the RPG, it should be allowed to work just as well in the boardgame, too. After all, it's still the same character and at that level of abstraction the precise nature of all the various factors that go into determining his or her overall performance at a given task should if anything matter even less than in the RPG.

But if that's not the official stance, well, that's what GM's discretion is for. ;)

[Jackmc]

and the system is intended to create exceptional people, not average people.

Out of curiosity, was that why the attribute system is designed so that it's literally impossible to have an average Att or are you guys just dealing with the legacy of 3rd ed?

-Jackmc

[Paul]

Out of curiosity, was that why the attribute system is designed so that it's literally impossible to have an average Att or are you guys just dealing with the legacy of 3rd ed?

Not quite following the parameters there. What would you consider average, and why is it impossible?

Paul

[Jackmc]

Not quite following the parameters there. What would you consider average, and why is it impossible?

Somewhere there's a table that benchmarks the traits levels and a 4 is considered "above average" while a 3 is listed as "Fair" (IIRC) and imposes a -1 penalty so it would be below average.  Ergo the true average is between the two numbers and since you can't buy a fractional Att, you end up with characters that are either above or below average by default.  Like you said, PC's are exceptional.

-Jackmc

[Paul]

Somewhere there's a table that benchmarks the traits levels and a 4 is considered "above average" while a 3 is listed as "Fair" (IIRC) and imposes a -1 penalty so it would be below average.  Ergo the true average is between the two numbers and since you can't buy a fractional Att, you end up with characters that are either above or below average by default.  Like you said, PC's are exceptional.

Well, there's page 35.

"For human characters, Attribute scores tend to fall in a range from 1 (feeble) to 8 (excellent), although truly exceptional specimens may possess Attributes as high as 10. An Attribute score of 4 defines the level an “average” person may expect."

Also note the Thug NPC on p. 337; those examples used the archetypes as their comparison.

I tried finding the table you mentioned, it does sound familiar. No luck did a text search for "fair" even.

Paul

[Jackmc]

Well, there's page 35.

"For human characters, Attribute scores tend to fall in a range from 1 (feeble) to 8 (excellent), although truly exceptional specimens may possess Attributes as high as 10. An Attribute score of 4 defines the level an “average” person may expect."

Also note the Thug NPC on p. 337; those examples used the archetypes as their comparison.

I tried finding the table you mentioned, it does sound familiar. No luck did a text search for "fair" even.

Paul

I looked too without any luck, it may actually be in 3rd ed. now that I think about it.

-Jackmc

[Tslammer]

Might I suggest An Attribute score of 4 defines the level ATOW is built around. 4+ skill also seems to be a turning point as well.

[Paul]

Might I suggest An Attribute score of 4 defines the level ATOW is built around. 4+ skill also seems to be a turning point as well.

Definitely the case, just wanted to back that up with stuff that's actually in print, rather than my (or Herb's) head.

Paul

[Wombat]

I probably missed it. Is there a chart that shows what the base TN are for each skill are (before any attribute or skill level adjustments are made)? What page?

[Paul]

Is there a chart that shows what the base TN are for each skill are (before any attribute or skill level adjustments are made)? What page?

p. 142 and again on 397.

Paul

[Wombat]

Thanks!  :D