Proposal: Stats not with age

[Bonez]

Are they both 30+?

And it came to my mind the knight of flowers, Jaime Lannister, and that young Targyen lad. In GoT some characters are trained for battle and have good skill, some are trained and have good skills elsewhere. I know this seems a work around, but ecspecially where someone mentioned that people in GoT should have better stats because of birth, training, etc.. With these extra points I find it hard to build a character set in a path for a certain goal with the age/points limit. My proposal is that we either remove the limit, modify it so that your age doesn't prohibit so much, or make a set limit for points per skill and go from that.

Now I would like to hear some community feedback.

[Pericles of Athens]

I like this.

[Bjorn]

I think you can tweek it a bit, yeah. Because the way it is we aren't very different from commoners, except that we can be better "all the way around". We cant be very good in one stat and normal in the rest. I think it could be changed, yes.

[Bonez]

I think you can tweek it a bit, yeah. Because the way it is we aren't very different from commoners, except that we can be better "all the way around". We cant be very good in one stat and normal in the rest. I think it could be changed, yes.

What I'm saying is make new limits.I want most of my characters RP wise to be Starks, focusing on battle, honor, and duty for the most part. If I have to develop stats outside of what I want them to use RP wise just because of a limit it should be changed.
I have meant to bring this up many times.

[Bjorn]

What I'm saying is make new limits.I want most of my characters RP wise to be Starks, focusing on battle, honor, and duty for the most part. If I have to develop stats outside of what I want them to use RP wise just because of a limit it should be changed.
I have meant to bring this up many times.

I agree completely. What should be our new limits then? Should there be an age cap of any sort? Because a permenant Cap for me is stupid, since people evolve over time. We can make the cap like x2 or x3 the first digit of a person's age. So a 20 year old can have +4 or +6 in any given stat. And a 30 year old can have a +6 or +9 in any given stat.

[Bonez]

I agree completely. What should be our new limits then? Should there be an age cap of any sort? Because a permenant Cap for me is stupid, since people evolve over time. We can make the cap like x2 or x3 the first digit of a person's age. So a 20 year old can have +4 or +6 in any given stat. And a 30 year old can have a +6 or +9 in any given stat.

Would age x2/10 rounded down be to hard to do?

I.E. 19x2=38/10=3.8 round down =3

[Pericles of Athens]

Would it not round up?

[Bonez]

Would it not round up?

Deliberatly round down. Pretty much you could set up a table going:

Years Stat points
10 . . . 2
15 . . . . 3
etc

[Bjorn]

Would it not round up?

I prefer it to round down. My opinion.

And I agree. It isnt too complicated. But...

[Bonez]

Deliberatly round down. Pretty much you could set up a table going:

Years Stat points
10 . . . 2
15 . . . . 3
etc

[Dance the older]

Problem I have with this is that every player will want their players to be the best. In canon, we know this isn't true. I am all for certain characters getting benefits in fighting, but everyone will want it for their own, which is just silly.

My char for example, I have 5 characters right now, 1 is +2 Duels Kingsguard because he's meant to have some skill, but my Dornish char, Ser Travers Dayne, Sword of the Morning is supposed to be a truly skilled swordsman, unlike any seen since Ser Arthur Dayne (his uncle), who in canon was the best swordsman in Westeros during the reign of the Mad King (until Ser Arthur's death in 283 AL). My Ser Travers is meant to be near to in par to his uncle. Ser Travers also wields the mysterious sword, Dawn, forged from a fallen star, meant to go to the greatest of House Dayne, the Sword of the Morning is supposed to have exceptional skill to even be considered worthy to wield the sword. The best I could do (within our restraints) is +2 Duels, +2 Survival, +2 Escape. But to me, he is as great as his uncle was lol. This makes sense for my guy, because his title, Sword of the Morning, is historically meant for a great fighter. But people in this RPG will abuse the dueling and have +10 on a rickity old bastard. I don't think this proposal will work, I see already 80% of the chars in this game are duelists lol, everyone wants that upper hand and that amazing fighter under their House.

If I had to place Ser Arthur Dayne in comparison to this game, I may give him a +10-12 Duel lol. Without the sword bonus. I would also consider The Red Viper to be an exceptional duelist, with an added bonus from his poisoned weapons.

I would rank Ser Travers at 75-80% his uncles overall skillevel (being only 23 right now).

[Bjorn]

Problem I have with this is that every player will want their players to be the best. In canon, we know this isn't true. I am all for certain characters getting benefits in fighting, but everyone will want it for their own, which is just silly.

My char for example, I have 5 characters right now, 1 is +2 Duels Kingsguard because he's meant to have some skill, but my Dornish char, Ser Travers Dayne, Sword of the Morning is supposed to be a truly skilled swordsman, unlike any seen since Ser Arthur Dayne (his uncle), who in canon was the best swordsman in Westeros during the reign of the Mad King (until Ser Arthur's death in 283 AL). My Ser Travers is meant to be near to in par to his uncle. Ser Travers also wields the mysterious sword, Dawn, forged from a fallen star, meant to go to the greatest of House Dayne, the Sword of the Morning is supposed to have exceptional skill to even be considered worthy to wield the sword. The best I could do (within our restraints) is +2 Duels, +2 Survival, +2 Escape. But to me, he is as great as his uncle was lol. This makes sense for my guy, because his title, Sword of the Morning, is historically meant for a great fighter. But people in this RPG will abuse the dueling and have +10 on a rickity old bastard. I don't think this proposal will work, I see already 80% of the chars in this game are duelists lol, everyone wants that upper hand and that amazing fighter under their House.

If I had to place Ser Arthur Dayne in comparison to this game, I may give him a +10-12 Duel lol. Without the sword bonus. I would also consider The Red Viper to be an exceptional duelist, with an added bonus from his poisoned weapons.

I would rank Ser Travers at 75-80% his uncles overall skillevel (being only 23 right now).

Hum... this gave me an idea.

We can treat different mains differently Maybe ONE of our mains can have a higher cap, while the others continue with the normal one.

[Bonez]

Hum... this gave me an idea.

We can treat different mains differently Maybe ONE of our mains can have a higher cap, while the others continue with the normal one.

Good idea there, god new roll set, but maybe rolls to see if characters will be skilled at birth, very low chance of course.

[Bjorn]

Good idea there, god new roll set, but maybe rolls to see if characters will be skilled at birth, very low chance of course.

This idea is even better! I loved it

[Dance the older]

As u can tell if you read my Char bios in the Signup, Lord Henryk, and Lord Veklund are more administrative bonuses, they aren't meant to fight 1on1, but do better leading. Ser Travers on the other hand is in my opinion, 1 of the 2 best fighters in Dorne, sharing only that status with Peri's Red Viper, Prince Oberyn. Ser Lenford excels at jousting, while Ser Jon Grandison is more of a duelist.

Ser Travers is my duelist, he was trained from a boy to replace his uncle one day, and Dawn was actually not used for 12 years, until Ser Travers came of age and recieved his Knighthood that he was actually able to be Sword of the Morning.

[Narf]

I propose we keep it as it is, just with a double up the first digit, say I am 13, then I can have 2 In Duels and when I am 20, I can have 4 In Duels. Yah?

[Dance the older]

I still don't see this working. Certain characters will be built as amazing duelists, when not meant to be. lol

There are a handful of truly great fighters, not a whole ton.

[Bjorn]

I propose we keep it as it is, just with a double up the first digit, say I am 13, then I can have 2 In Duels and when I am 20, I can have 4 In Duels. Yah?

that means when I am 60 I can have +20 in Duels... xD

[Bonez]

Problem I have with this is that every player will want their players to be the best. In canon, we know this isn't true. I am all for certain characters getting benefits in fighting, but everyone will want it for their own, which is just silly..

This is your reply Narf.

[Bonez]

Good idea there, god new roll set, but maybe rolls to see if characters will be skilled at birth, very low chance of course.

I still don't see this working. Certain characters will be built as amazing duelists, when not meant to be. lol

There are a handful of truly great fighters, not a whole ton.

Wrong order...