Frail & Sturdy - Is this necessary?

Is Frail/Sturdy Needed?


  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
It is a reworking of the rule because multiple objections are focusing on the increased cost being unfair / unreasonable (paraphrasing). I am just pointing out that the rules could be written without an increased cost and still present identical benefits (benefits that literally mirror racial benefits that already exist and nobody is objecting to). It is completely reasonable to point out that this reason for objection is flimsy unless the same objections exist to the advantages of those other races.

-MS
 
It is a reworking of the rule because multiple objections are focusing on the increased cost being unfair / unreasonable (paraphrasing). I am just pointing out that the rules could be written without an increased cost and still present identical benefits (benefits that literally mirror racial benefits that already exist and nobody is objecting to). It is completely reasonable to point out that this reason for objection is flimsy unless the same objections exist to the advantages of those other races.

-MS

I'm more concerned with infinite purchases of Racial Dodge for sideburns, Resist Magic at an incredibly cheap rate, and Resolute a "capstone" Fighter skill for the same cost as Fighters without any downside.
 
It is a reworking of the rule because multiple objections are focusing on the increased cost being unfair / unreasonable (paraphrasing).

Yes, it is. Reworking system to have the same system, but move how it function is doing just that. The rule, as written, will see little purchase in "frail" races.

I am just pointing out that the rules could be written without an increased cost and still present identical benefits (benefits that literally mirror racial benefits that already exist and nobody is objecting to).

No, the rule is being opposed because of the rule-as-written isn't worthwhile and adds little-to-nothing to the game atmosphere.

It is completely reasonable to point out that this reason for objection is flimsy unless the same objections exist to the advantages of those other races.

Again, no, it isn't reasonable approach, as you're just moving semantic wording to have the same effect.

Edit: After writing the above, I realize I've fallen to not staying on topic. I won't be replying to additional comments in this vein, as they are not on topic and not helpful for this discussion.
 
I couldn't disagree more. I think it adds meaningfully to the game atmosphere that an elf fighter pays the same for Hearty as an orc scholar. I think that really helps define conceptually how sturdy those races are compared to each other. The same could be said for the fact that an orc fighter spends half of what an elf scholar spends.

-MS
 
I challenge you to link to one of those quotes. I have seen plenty of owners chime in that racial advantages/penalties are not purely balance and that flavor is also a factor (sometimes a strong factor), but I have never seen one claim that balance is completely ignored.

During discussions on the High Ogre thread, I sent PM's to both an Owner, and ARC member regarding the structure for assigning values for benefits in comparison to their racial requirements. Their responses (09/30/2016) were fairly similar. Essentially there is no formula for "X racial requirement should be worth Y" build. In this regard, there is no mathematical balancing. An owner in the High Ogre thread also echoes this sentiment.

Both PM's did mention that they wanted to ensure that the abilities were "balanced", however neither mentioned specifics regarding what metric was being used to determine the degree of balance, or what they were being balanced against (other races, classes, etc.).

As these comments are almost nine months old, additional Owner design insight at this point may be beneficial.
 
I'm more concerned with infinite purchases of Racial Dodge for sideburns, Resist Magic at an incredibly cheap rate, and Resolute a "capstone" Fighter skill for the same cost as Fighters without any downside.

I'm not. Either the two skills are appropriately costed or they aren't. If they are appropriately costed, than there should never be a limit on how many can be purchased. If they aren't, than the cost should increase.

Racial Dodge costs 10 build, a whole level. That is twice the cost of a rogue dodge and even more expensive than a class dodge for every other class. That is definitely a non-trivial cost to say no to a single effect per day. Resist Magic costs 5 build, 1/2 a level, and the same cost as a rogue dodge. That is also a non-trivial cost to say no to a single magic effect per day.

-MS
 
Racial Dodge costs 10 build, a whole level. That is twice the cost of a rogue dodge and even more expensive than a class dodge for every other class. That is definitely a non-trivial cost to say no to a single effect per day. Resist Magic costs 5 build, 1/2 a level, and the same cost as a rogue dodge. That is also a non-trivial cost to say no to a single magic effect per day.

What were the observations from your 0.8, 0.7 and 0.6 Playtests on Racial skills? Did you find that people purchased a significant amount of them? Or were they bought very sparingly? Did players who purchased them have sufficient opportunities to use them so as to feel that they were meaningful? Or at the end of the playtest did the majority of those abilities go unused?

Did you find that Hearty (getting back on track) was purchased commonly in these Playtests? How did playtesters feel about the costs, benefit, and the fact that it fell outside of the majority of classes' skill trees?
 
If they are planning to spend the XP on Hearty that much, well, then they would be at a net loss of 17 build (for the Elf example). But if they are dumping 120/215 points into just Hearty, well, that is the build they apparently wanted. It does not help them with any fighter skill prerequisites.

Taking these numbers into a conversation to me, is a bit absurd. I highly doubt any PC is planning to spend over 50% of their build on a single skill like this. I may be wrong, but I really cannot see anyone doing so. Is there anyone in any playtest that has done this?

I couldn't disagree more. I think it adds meaningfully to the game atmosphere that an elf fighter pays the same for Hearty as an orc scholar. I think that really helps define conceptually how sturdy those races are compared to each other. The same could be said for the fact that an orc fighter spends half of what an elf scholar spends.

-MS

So the both of you are totally on board with the proposition I feel I -have- to make now, right, with adding a Smart/Dumb racial adv/disadv to purchasing spells, right?

I look forward to my discounts on Formals and/or spells!
 
Did you find that Hearty (getting back on track) was purchased commonly in these Playtests? How did playtesters feel about the costs, benefit, and the fact that it fell outside of the majority of classes' skill trees?

Well, Hearty, in it's last iterations, were only available to fighters and added to their Fighter Skills. So for that answer, I think we will have to wait and see what this round of testing brings. I know a few fighters up in Calgary bought several to test out the "max body/armour" concept, but again, that was also because they could add Slays (and more Hearty) to the builds.

I guess that is something that could be asked on the playtest feedback form. "Did you purchase multiple instances of a Racial Skill(s)"? "Did you purchase multiple instances of Hearty?" with a qty as well if the answer is "yes".
 
So the both of you are totally on board with the proposition I feel I -have- to make now, right, with adding a Smart/Dumb racial adv/disadv to purchasing spells, right?

I look forward to my discounts on Formals and/or spells!

At this point Evan, I think you are not adding to the conversation in a constructive way. I will not have any part in further posts along this line.
 
So the both of you are totally on board with the proposition I feel I -have- to make now, right, with adding a Smart/Dumb racial adv/disadv to purchasing spells, right?

I look forward to my discounts on Formals and/or spells!

If you think there is a race that it is appropriate for thematically and it is BALANCED, sure I'll support it. That is the key here. I think the sturdy/frail distinction is balanced in conjunction with the Hearty skill. I think you would have a pretty hard sell convincing me that a +1/-1 is balanced for spells (you know, since that would drop costs to 0 for scholars) or formal levels, but I would certainly look at the numbers before making up my mind.

Part of why I think Hearty is fine is because it is between a 15% and 20% discount/surcharge, which is a significantly less impressive benefit than the up to 33% discount dwarves or stone elves get.

-MS
 
Let's do a tone-reset for this post! :)

It sounds like some people think it is necessary to differentiate for the flavor of the game, others think that there are other ways to differentiate for flavor.

My thought it that I like my "flavor" added through non-combat-mechanic items, or if it *is* combat, having it be about something people *can* do vs. something they can't. Biata/Stone Elf mind powers? Cool! MWE being able to resist commands because, by darnit, they hate command magic so much they can innately build resistances? Neat! Hoblings get mad and throw dishes so they get cheaper thrown weapon? Yep!

I just don't like the "take away" aspect of it, even if it's just taking away a discount.

For what it's worth, while I prefer no frail/sturdy differentiation, this is *not* one of the rules changes I have really strong feelings on. I lean more toward not making that differentiation, but I don't have strong feelings on it.
 
Last edited:
Well, Hearty, in it's last iterations, were only available to fighters and added to their Fighter Skills. So for that answer, I think we will have to wait and see what this round of testing brings. I know a few fighters up in Calgary bought several to test out the "max body/armour" concept, but again, that was also because they could add Slays (and more Hearty) to the builds.

That is correct. Some characters may have had inadvertent opportunities to purchase Hearty in previous cycles by qualifying for prerequisites through purchases of things like Blacksmithing, Wear Extra Armor, Critical Attacks to fuel magic items, etc. Hybrid classes like Templars and Scouts also had more direct natural access to the skill than Rogues or Scholars. Some similarities can be drawn from experiences in the previous cycles, and can be compared to Hearty's new structure.
 
Racial Dodge costs 10 build, a whole level. That is twice the cost of a rogue dodge and even more expensive than a class dodge for every other class.

I would argue that Dodge costs 35 build for a Rogue because you MUST meet that 30-build pre-requisite. There is no pre-req for Racial Dodge other than "must be <x> race". The tradeoff is that you have 30 build worth of other skills. But for Racial Dodge, you are free to spent 25 build in other skills/abilities as well. I think Racial Dodge is way too good for only 10 build.
 
I would argue that Dodge costs 35 build for a Rogue because you MUST meet that 30-build pre-requisite. There is no pre-req for Racial Dodge other than "must be <x> race". The tradeoff is that you have 30 build worth of other skills. But for Racial Dodge, you are free to spent 25 build in other skills/abilities as well. I think Racial Dodge is way too good for only 10 build.

It is a small point (and well off-topic for the thread, so I'll keep it short), but you only need 30 build of other skills for the first dodge. You need 25 build worth of other skills for the next dodge. Each previous dodge counts towards the points needed for the next one.

The simplest answer I have for why I don't consider it too good for 10 build is because every single skill it can say "no" to costs less than 10 build (with the exception of ridiculous builds like 9th level fighter spells). That does make a good argument that Resist Magic should cost 6 build, though.

-MS
 
I've talked about balance a few times, and I think it is worth providing an example of what I am talking about.

Let's compare Dwarf and Elf.

Elf may purchase Resist Charm and gets bows for half price. Elves wear elf ears (effectively no meaningful costuming).

Dwarves may purchase Resist Poison and get a discount on blacksmith. Dwarves wear beards (more significant than ears, but still light)

The two resists are roughly equivalent (poison is arguably better). The half price bow is a much better benefit than blacksmith discount for most characters (in that it will save more build in general and bow use benefits almost every class, where blacksmithing is pretty niche). Overall, I'd say the benefits roughly even out.

All that is left is costuming, where dwarves have the more inconvenient costuming by a good margin. The sturdy / frail distinction covers that.


In this case I think either dwarves get a little too much or elves get a bit too little (probably an artifact of trying to balance against stone elves, dark elves, and MWEs), but it is close and I think the health distinction helps maintain balance.

It is worth noting that with the exception of the barbarian (which I will reserve judgement on until full details come about the new rules for oathsworn), the other two sturdy races have the most awful makeup / costuming requirements in our game (full body paint + tusks) and don't have otherwise remarkably great racial features to make up for it (not like dark elves that get Resist Magic to help make up for the awfulness of full black body paint).

-MS
 
Last edited:
I've talked about balance a few times, and I think it is worth providing an example of what I am talking about.

Let's compare Dwarf and Elf.

Elf may purchase Resist Charm and gets bows for half price. Elves wear elf ears (effectively no meaningful costuming).

Dwarves may purchase Resist Poison and get a discount on blacksmith. Elves wear beards (more significant than ears, but still light)

The two resists are roughly equivalent (poison is arguably better). The half price bow is a much better benefit than blacksmith discount for most characters (in that it will save more build in general and bow use benefits almost every class, where blacksmithing is pretty niche). Overall, I'd say the benefits roughly even out.

All that is left is costuming, where dwarves have the more inconvenient costuming by a good margin. The sturdy / frail distinction covers that.


In this case I think either dwarves get a little too much or elves get a bit too little (probably an artifact of trying to balance against stone elves, dark elves, and MWEs), but it is close and I think the health distinction helps maintain balance.

It is worth noting that with the exception of the barbarian (which I will reserve judgement on until full details come about the new rules for oathsworn), the other two races have the most awful makeup / costuming requirements in our game (full body paint + tusks) and don't have otherwise remarkably great racial features to make up for it (not like dark elves that get Resist Magic to help make up for the awfulness of full black body paint).

-MS

A few questions or observations regarding this breakdown:

• The Elven Racial is Resist Command, it is not specifically restricted to Charm.
• Dwarves wear beards.
• What "costuming" are you referring to, beyond ears or beards?
• What races are you referring to when you say "other two"? The races omitted from this review are (not counting any Elf types, or the aforementioned Barbarians): Biata, Dryad, High Ogre, High Orc, Hobling, [Human, N/A], Selunari, WylderKin. (Or is this specifically in regards to Sturdy / Frail races? If so, Hobling is also listed as a Frail race.)
 
Last edited:
You are correct. I couldn't remember the word "Command" and didn't feel like looking it up. I was sure it would be understood.

Beards are what I am referring to. They are a more annoying costume piece than elf ears for a number of small reasons. They certainly aren't tusk level bad, but they definitely are more annoying to deal with than elf ears or biata feathers.

I left out the word sturdy when making my final point. There are four sturdy races. Two of the three that aren't dwarves require full face makeup and tusks... UGH.

-MS
 
The Dwarf section says that Elves wear beards. It seems like it might be a typo.

Thank you for the clarification on the other items. It helps better portray what direction you're headed in.
 
Due to the divisive nature that these conversations are going, lately, and the fact that I believe that some individuals are going to be at a permanent impasse with me, I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

There's clearly a difference of opinion in what constitutes fair and balanced across the spectrum of Alliance, and fighting with folks whom I won't ever meet is as much a waste of their time as it is mine.
 
Back
Top