The plan here is for a living list, demonstrating the meaning of different values of different stats, hopefully we can use it to reach some form of concensus.
I've started with ballistic skill, as it has been a topic of discussion in other recent topics. What does anyone think of the definitions I've put in, and the placement on the scale of some famous characters.
Bs
100 - Bullseye (Dare Devil)
99
98
97 - Legolas (Lord of the Rings)
96
95 - River Tam (Firefly)
94
93
92 - Scaramanga (Bond)
91
90: An outrageously good shot. It is increadably rare for someone to have even the potential to achieve this level, and even then they have to train tirelessly to get this good. About average for a vindicare assassin.
89 - Mad Larkin (Gaunts Ghosts)
88
87 - Blondie (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)
86
85
84 - Master chief petty officer John 117 (Halo)
83
82 - Jango fett (Star Wars)
81
80 - The best shots in the imperium, with sufficient training and experiance can get this good. Typical for space marines.
79
78 - Zoe Washburne (Firefly)
77
76- Bond, James Bond
75 - The most elite of soldiers, such as the SAS and stormtroopers
74
73
72 - Jack Bauer (24)
71
70 - Expert shots who out achieve their comrades, or veteran guardsmen from regiments renowm for thier marksmanship.
69
68
67 - Marcus Fenix (Gears of War)
66
65 - Malcolm Reynolds (Firefly)
64
63 - Han Solo (Star Wars)
62
61
60 - Fully trained soldiers with a decent abount of experiance, as most guardsmen have assuming they survive their first battle.
59
58 - John McClane (Die hard)
57
56 - Vincent Hanna (Heat)
55
54
53
52
51
50 - Men with basic training, but who lack experiance.
49
48
47
46 - Hoban Washburne (Firefly)
45
44
43
42
41
40 - Has had some small experiance with shoooting, or at least understands the theory
39
38
37 - Imperial Stormtroomer according to the films (Star Wars)
36
35
34
33
32
31
30 and below - Has never picked up a gun before, nor ever wanted to.
I'm going to say that it's inherently a bad idea to put video game player characters on the list. Master Chief's shooting skill depends entirely on who's holding the controller.
Next thing I'd say is that I would argue against quite a lot of your placements.
To take one example, while I'm not one to deny that Zoe Washburne is an impressive shot, what's your justification for making her better than regularly trained and practised SAS soldiers?
You're telling Kaled that BS 75 would take repeated practice - but she gets BS 78 when with a lack of a shooting range aboard Serenity, she's probably not putting in all that much.
You also say that BS 60 is about the equivalent of a trained Guardsman who survives their first battle - but tell me that Silva's BS 63 is "higher than most guardsmen". Well, she's survived 20 years of battles - so surely, it'd go without saying that she'd be better than someone who's only made it through one.
So, in each case, which is it? Is your list, or the comments you've made elsewhere the one to go by?
[snark] When I initially saw this post I thought someone had finally come to their senses about the probability that we'd reach a consensus.[/snark]
In all seriousness though, if any claver takes a look at the past few character threads and analyzes the comments with any level of intellectual detachment I think you will reach the inevitable conclusion that there is no consensus to be had and that stats buggering should be left to groups that game together. No headway is ever made and it just makes people angry.
Take a look, there are active threads right now that have degenerated into back and forths with no end it sight. Neither side ever presents a critique which the other side accepts. I am saying this as a member who considered making a list like this in the past couple weeks, but after the rash of threads that essentially say nothing I'm ready to throw in the towel.
That said, this will be my last post pertaining to this topic on any thread. If others do find this a worthwhile pursuit than I will stop raining on anyone's parade as I'm starting to sound like a broken record myself.
Without getting drawn into the debate about where various fictional characters rank, I think there is a fair degree of consensus on the general descriptions for 50, 60, 70 etc.
Where we can't seem to agree is how easy it is for particular characters to achieve these levels. To take the example of Kaled, is being a 300 year old veteran inquisitor mean he ranks up there with the most elite soldiers? It comes down, really, to the discretion of the character's designer, possibly influenced by the environment the character will be used in.
QuoteNeither side ever presents a critique which the other side accepts.
Comming to the same conclution spurred this on. I realised that my take on the stats was not as well matched to the LRB as it could be, and that I have no reason to shift my standard in line with anyone elses. Putting this list together in practice has already refined my views, and I mean it to be a skeleton, that should be altered as I come to understand how others view the stat.
QuoteI'm going to say that it's inherently a bad idea to put video game player characters on the list
Legolas, Jango Fett and others have also appeared in games as PC's. Master Chief is a character in fiction as well as an avatar for the player and it was this I was basing it on.
QuoteZoe Washburne
Zoe is a truely outstanding shot and she was once an elite soldier, I can never get over that time she shot the guy's gun from his had from accross a field in "Safe", though factoring in the exageration of the show makers though I was probably over generous. But this is the purpose of this thread. Where would you put her?
QuoteYou also say that BS 60 is about the equivalent of a trained Guardsman who survives their first battle
Yeah, but most don't.
As I said though, making this list has already altered my veiw, I probably would have put average guardsman Bs at 55 before but this has changed my mind to 60 strate off.
Also my comment about Silva wasn't ment to imply that she was much better than a guardsman should be, but that she was literally beter than most, as everyone above average is, and that given her focus on Close combat I would have expected otherwise. When you pointed out she hadn't always been that way I realised that you were right, but maintain that, if you felt that she needed trimming down (which I though was your intension for Marco and Silva) then a small Bs loss would be a step you could take.
Huh?!! You missed out Joe Pineapples from the ABC Warriors - 110 on a bad day. I agree that putting individuals in the scale is highly ''subjective''.
Whilst I do think there is mileage in trying to hammer out some sort of idea about where generic player character classes/types would sit - it seems fairly obvious from recent posts that everyone has thier own ideas for thier own PC's and retinues.
Arguably, the basics are already covered by the front of the LRB, but that doesnt really give anything apart from 'the average Joe' and perhaps one other example. It would be an idea to try and decide roughly where a range of generic descriptions would sit, i.e. IG 1 year conscript, Karskin squad member etc.
But.....I realise that even that is fraught with difficulty.
There was a sport I used to practice on a very regular basis; if I had spent my time doing nothing else I would not have reach anywhere near a professional level. I know...its a game not the real world - but I like to game like the real world. So my PC's always tend to be only a little bit above average. Personally, I think that an individuals apptitude and natural ability plays a part; in our world not every soldier in every army can shoot or gets any better over time, perhaps they just become less dangerous to thier squad mates.
As each person has an entirely personal and subjective view of what they want, I think this is a grand idea doomed to end in a morass of claim and counter-claim, I think it really would be easier to herd cats....
Edit: clarity?
Defining our characters on a scale made up of other characters whose BS we also can't agree on seems like a flawed approach. Maybe it could work with 5 or 10 point ranges each of which has a description of that level of skill and a load of archetypes and characters who would fit in that range. However, I'm still not convinced that a consensus is possible, or even desired...
Quote from: Kaled on March 09, 2010, 09:12:52 AM
Defining our characters on a scale made up of other characters whose BS we also can't agree on seems like a flawed approach. Maybe it could work with 5 or 10 point ranges each of which has a description of that level of skill and a load of archetypes and characters who would fit in that range. However, I'm still not convinced that a consensus is possible, or even desired...
I think it certaiinly is desired, but otherwise I think I agree, I've set about this the wrong way. I'll drop it for now. Maybe I'll try again if I think of a better approach. Even this failed attempt has helped me center my veiws though, for example I'd now concider Inquisitor Kaled to be very gifted in ant areas, more so than most Inquisitors, but not implausably so as I previously believed.
Maybe I'm wrong and people really do want a consensus - perhaps it's just me who doesn't see it as being all that important... I'd be interested to hear whether other people do think it's important? (And if they do, how they think we should reach that consensus?)
Quote from: Inquisitor Cade on March 09, 2010, 03:23:18 AMLegolas, Jango Fett and others have also appeared in games as PC's.
I didn't necessarily rule them out as examples, but if you take Legolas or Jango Fett, most people will think of them as film characters (given that people are usually more familiar with the LotR films than the books).
But take Master Chief, and people will almost automatically think of the games first.
QuoteZoe is a truely outstanding shot and she was once an elite soldier, I can never get over that time she shot the guy's gun from his had from accross a field in "Safe"
It's more accurate to say that she was once a soldier. A good one at that, but for her to have been a true elite, she would have had to have been picked out for an elite unit - and if you take the battle of Serenity Valley in the Pilot episode, it's pretty clear that their platoon is nowhere near that competent.
Allowing for the inflation of the heroes' shooting ability in film and television, I'd probably represent her with a BS in the mid to high 60s and Deadeye Shot.
Not that there aren't members of Serenity's crew who do deserve BS values in the 70s.
Quotebut maintain that, if you felt that she needed trimming down (which I though was your intention for Marco and Silva) then a small Bs loss would be a step you could take.
Trim down a little, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think every last stat needs adjusting.
I posted Marco because I thought he did need work. Silva I was happier with from the start, and I used her as something of a "baseline" to try and judge opinions.
A couple of her mental stats might come down a few points, but I doubt she's going to change much.
Quote from: Kaled on March 09, 2010, 02:52:00 PMMaybe I'm wrong and people really do want a consensus - perhaps it's just me who doesn't see it as being all that important...
Well, I think that trying to pin down character archetypes into particular bands of BS isn't really feasible given the infinite variations of character training and background that are possible. You might be able to put down a "likely BS", but given varying interpretations of "how much better is a 5 point difference", you'll still end up with some things people don't necessarily agree on.
If anything, it may be worth avoiding having any "hard consensus", because then we've got something that people will feel they need to conform to, whether or not it's appropriate.
As long as the characters aren't so wildly different that they can't meet at the same table and still have a fun game, then there isn't really a whole lot that needs fixing.
[old man]Who are most of these people?[/old man]
R.
P.S. Obviously, being an old man isn't something that stops with some uBB code.
Quote from: MarcoSkoll on March 09, 2010, 03:04:33 PM
As long as the characters aren't so wildly different that they can't meet at the same table and still have a fun game, then there isn't really a whole lot that needs fixing.
I think this sums up the reason we are having these reoccurring discussions. We all want to be able to a 'fun game' without worrying that the person who we face is going to wipe us off the table in the first turn.
Having different stats is fine when people are with their normal group but when we come together at the GTs and Conclave meets the problem of stats appears. A generic consensus of what each stat roughly is equivalent to might be the way forward. The table by Inquis Cade (although I'd change a few of the references) seems a fairly good way of approaching this.
I posted a previous thread hoping we could try to come sort of agreement - or at least provide starting players with a more concrete guide. The problem for me was that I've been a fan of Inquisitor for a long time, but played it relatively little. I came online asking for help with stats from Inquisitor experts, only to be told "Use whatever stats you think are best." - Something that didn't really help me feel more confident in creating characters.
Quote from: Kasthan on March 09, 2010, 04:34:39 PM
Having different stats is fine when people are with their normal group but when we come together at the GTs and Conclave meets the problem of stats appears.
I've been to a fair few Conclave events now and have never had a real problem - sure some people's stats are higher than I might have made them if the character was mine, but then other people's are lower. Has anyone had a real problem at a Conclave event with someone using characters of a power level that was so different it spoiled the game? As far as I can see, we're almost never talking about a difference in stats of more than about ten points - and in my eyes that sort of difference is minor and hardly worth the amount of time that we spend arguing over it.
Games at the IGT and Spring Conclave tend to be run by GMs, and it's his job to arbitrate and ensure that things are 'fair' - if one player has hugely powerful characters then the GM can ask him not to use all of them so he's outnumbered, or make his objectives harder to achieve, or anything else he deems necessary to balance things and ensure the game is fun for everyone.
The rulebook provides a vague outline of what stats represent, and more than one person has attempted to expand that and make it more comprehensive - but they don't provide concrete guidance because there's no way to clearly and concisely say whether a character is deserving of 'competant' or 'expert' so we still end up arguing. This attempt to do it relative to other characters is flawed for reasons outlined above. In many ways, I think Cade's list of archetypes (in the 'Conclave standard' thread) is pretty good - however my experience of Conclave events suggests that his profiles are a little lower than those that more people use at such events. I therefore tend to consider those as being towards the bottom level of what you'd expect for that archetype - profiles that are probably perfect for NPCs, but PCs are a cut above and will often have slightly higher stats.
The best thing that new players could do is to look at a number of sources, the rulebook, the 'Conclave standard' thread, profiles of characters they're likely to face etc and then use whatever stats they think are best (sorry Molotov!). The important thing though is not to consider those profiles fixed, but to feel free to tweak them if, after a few games (to give the dice time to 'settle down'), the character doesn't perform as you'd expect. And that doesn't just mean up the stats that seem too low, but to also lower stats that turn out to be too high - the former is easy, the latter is less so because by definition you're changing your character to make him less capable, but it's a necessary part of creating a well-rounded character.
Unless anyone has a better way to bring us to a consensus that we can all agree on and is clear for new players, then I think the status quo is the best solution (apparently I'm an Amalathian!).
Quote from: Kasthan on March 09, 2010, 04:34:39 PMI think this sums up the reason we are having these reoccurring discussions. We all want to be able to a 'fun game' without worrying that the person who we face is going to wipe us off the table in the first turn.
Well, to pick up on what Kaled has just said, I had Sgt Gillmore at the IGT - A heavily armoured and well armed Kasrkin, with stats in pretty much the same range as Silva.
It's probably reasonable to say he was one of the more powerful characters at the event - but he hardly dominated the table to the extent he wiped people off the table in the first turn.
First game, he shot a pilgrim by mistake and had a go at beating up a savant.
Second game, he killed
Father Christmas Slaanesh Nik'las pretty much because he declared a shooting action at the daemon on the last game turn - GM decided this proved fatal in order to wrap up the game.
Fourth game, he got shot, dove for cover, then lost a swordfight to a girl. (Okay, said girl
was a Techpriestess)
Is there anyone who would actually complain and say Kai dominated any of the games? Beyond, of course, what you would expect of a Kasrkin - frankly, I'd say he perhaps even underperformed, considering that he is a veteran and elite trooper.
I think there's too much fret over differences that aren't actually all that considerable on the table.
Quote from: Kasthan on March 09, 2010, 04:34:39 PM
I think this sums up the reason we are having these reoccurring discussions. We all want to be able to a 'fun game' without worrying that the person who we face is going to wipe us off the table in the first turn.
Just to come back to this point because I didn't address it before, even if we manage to come to some consensus about stats, there's still plenty of opportunity to end up facing a warband that's able to wipe us off the table in the first turn. For example, Marco and I seem to play using characters who fit roughly the same standard, but I could go to my shelf and choose a warband made of savants, archivists and led by a Sister Hospitaller and they'd have barely any armour or weapons between them, and Marco could turn up with his stormtrooper, bionic IG veteran and Inquisitor, and wipe the floor with my guys when it came to a fight. Or I could bring a marine, Custodian and Necron Pariah (now that's a warband that would take some justifying) and Marco's team wouldn't stand a chance.
Inquisitor isn't meant to be fair and balanced, and even if we agree on a standard, it still won't be - hence another reason that I don't see reaching a consensus on stats as being all that important.
Quote from: Kaled on March 09, 2010, 05:53:22 PMFor example, Marco and I seem to play using characters who fit roughly the same standard, but I could go to my shelf and choose a warband made of savants, archivists and led by a Sister Hospitaller and they'd have barely any armour or weapons between them, and Marco could turn up with his stormtrooper, bionic IG veteran and Inquisitor, and wipe the floor with my guys when it came to a fight.
... and pretty unwillingly. I don't know if my opponent is going to turn up with a warband that's above, below or completely average as far as combat potential.
Even if my warband is perfectly balanced against the average, if someone does turn up with a Marine or a small girl (not that I know anyone that would do either of those... ;)) as part of their warband, then that balance is going to be thrown out of whack one way or the other.
QuoteOr I could bring a marine, Custodian and Necron Pariah (now that's a warband that would take some justifying) and Marco's team wouldn't stand a chance.
And of course, that doesn't mean I don't have a few things in my collection (or in the pipeline) which couldn't tip the balance once again...
But I'd only normally turn up to a game with those models if I was about to GM it.
In the end, a demand for "utter balance" can only really get us back to something like the Ready Reckoner, and I don't want to be labelling my characters with "points values" - that's not why I create them, and I don't choose to use them in a game because of the number of "points" I have left in my warband selection.
That's not what Inquisitor is about.
I apologise my original post appears not to be that clear. I am not suggesting 'utter balance' it can't and won't happen, good and original characters would not fit within these bounds. (The ready reckoner should have never been included, it just confuses beginners)
What I was hoping to get across was that if I place down a model/character and it has a specialism in a certain area it should be roughly equal to the other characters on the table that have specialised in a similar area. e.g. an expert swordman and a highly skilled spear fighter should be at about the same WS. (It might be an idea to introduce specialisms that add to your base stats much like in DH and WHFRP)
More or less powerful warbands are very dependant on the scenario, a high BS armed-to-the-teeth Storm Trooper will be almost useless when the objective is to open a safe that requires a high Sg (and by now we should know that stand up and shoot games are boring and tend to just drag on).
(Sorry Cade for derailing your topic even further)
Quote from: Kasthan on March 09, 2010, 07:52:42 PM
What I was hoping to get across was that if I place down a model/character and it has a specialism in a certain area it should be roughly equal to the other characters on the table that have specialised in a similar area.
But don't we roughly have that already? As I said before, in most cases there's not more than about 5-10 points difference between most PCs that are supposed to be the same level. And by considering stats in isolation you're not going to get the sort of 'standard' you're looking for anyway - for example you can have two characters with the same WS, but one might have more skills than the other, or he might have a higher Speed and so be able to make more attacks, and so on.
Quote from: Kasthan on March 09, 2010, 07:52:42 PMe.g. an expert swordman and a highly skilled spear fighter should be at about the same WS.
And, as Kaled says, they usually are, pretty roughly.
I take Silva to be an expert hand to hand combatant, and she's therefore WS 72. Most characters taken as being the same level will usually be in the 65-75 region (possibly with a skill or two), so there's not exactly a vast yawning chasm between them.
I think the matter is necessarily disagreement on similar skill levels having similar stats, but disagreement on how high stats fit together.
I wouldn't have a problem with a character whose stats lay mostly in the 60s and low 70s. I wouldn't do it for every character, but these are larger than life heroes who are frequently one in a million (or rarer), I don't think that it's like it should be forbidden to have some characters like that.
But, it seems quite a few people however think that stats of that level should be far more mutually exclusive.
I know I said I was done with this but I got sudden inspiration.
Why not create a database of characters of various backgrounds? Take the stats, rules, and 500 words of background and create a file with Inquisitors, Guardsmen(women), Techpriests, Assassins, etc. That way you could see how others designed archetypes with different focus (the Inquisitor who studies and strategizes versus the Inquisitor who investigates and battles to give two very general examples).
While it wouldn't give a consensus necessarily it would give a good indication of the broadness of the spectrum. If nothing else it would give folks new to the game something to look at.
Quote from: Alyster Wick on March 10, 2010, 01:10:52 AMWhy not create a database of characters of various backgrounds?
Cade actually did something similar a while back: http://www.the-conclave.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=162.msg1626#msg1626
QuoteCade actually did something similar a while back
What I meant is that we make a database of actual characters that players had created, real characters with backgrounds, not generic ones. The issue with the generic characters seemed to be that everyone made characters out of sync with these in various ways. If a cross section of characters that have actually been used on table are put together in a database then that will offer up a lens through which new players can judge characters. It also gives other claver's a basis upon which to judge.
Rather than pointing to the examples at the back of the Inquisitor book we can point to "The Conclave Database of Standard Characters" (just came up with that now). It could be a collaborative project and rather than critiquing individual characters someone's contrary views can be expressed by them posting a character more in line with their views. If we get maybe ten conclavers who post a couple of their inquisitors and a variety of henchmen we could then split them into categories, vote on which ones to keep, then present it to the Conclave as a guide for new players.
I think this would be way more productive (and most importantly way more fun) than arguing about stats. Heck, we could start using these characters as a basis for critique, and it'll also answer the question of what the Conclave Standard character looks like.
That's basically how I create my characters. I have a spreadsheet with all of their stats in it (some of which have been playtested and I know I'm happy with) - then when I create a new character I figure out his stats by looking at how he should compare to the other characters.
It's a good ideas, but I see a couple of issues. Firstly, why would I want to post the stats of all of my characters where everyone can see them? Why should you know going into a game what my character's Wp is? If you want to find out whether he's suceptable to psychic attack, then you'll have to give it a try. Secondly, it should probably be restricted to characters who have already been used at Conclave events - if someone is only playing in their own gaming group then there's little point in other people comparing their characters to them. Including them would give a wider spectrum of stats used in the Inquisitor community as a whole, but as the main problem seems to be what happens when people from different groups come together at things like the Spring Conclave, I think restricting it to characters who have actually been used at such events makes most sense.
If I were doing it, I wouldn't bother with background - I'd keep it to profiles only. With 500 (or even 200) words per character and a load of characters it's going to be so big few noovices are likely to read it all. I know this means you can't see the 'justification' for the stats, but since everyone has a different idea about what it takes to justify a particular value I don't see losing that information as a problem. In fact, you could just keep it as archetype, stats, skills and psychic powers and then it's be fairly anonymous, which would get around my first issue. Of course, I can see some people using it to say 'my character is the best swordsman, I'll have a look and see what the best WS is at the moment and then go one higher', regardless of whether their character should actually be higher than whoever was at the top - but I guess people can pretty much do that at the moment anyway.
I think Mr Wick's idea is going to be as close to an answer as we are likely to get - and Kaled's suggestion of just the anonymous stat lines gives all the info one would need.
As an Inq. noob, I have been struggling to work out what is the generally ''accepted'' range. Everyone mentions the Conclave Standard and front of the LRB, but these are either very general/vauge or devolve into an opposite series of viewpoints being batted back and forth (interesting and stimulating though that is).
I personally shy away from high stats in any gaming system, but I think I would probably have ended up with some very low level Inquisitors/retinue leaders, which, should I have turned up at the conclave, (next year, next year...) would have been rather boring to play with/against.
I dont see anyone wanting a set rule like ''character type 1 must have a bs betwen x and y'' but I would like to get a general flavour, the spread of stats/bell curve, that other players use so as to feel I could play anyone anywhere and there would be a broad (cant stress that enough) similiarity.
Just to add to what I said before, I think the idea about voting which characters to include on such a list is only likely to lead to yet more arguments. I think it could only really work if it were a list of characters that people had used at Conclave events and were happy with how they performed; including untested characters or ones from other gaming groups would dilute its usefulness.
QuoteI think it could only really work if it were a list of characters that people had used at Conclave events and were happy with how they performed; including untested characters or ones from other gaming groups would dilute its usefulness.
This makes sense and indeed the thought crossed my mind after posting.
To assuage concerns over knowing a given character's stats, we could do archetype, ordos (where applicable), school of thought, and special notes. These categories would obviously have to be slightly modified based on archetype, but I think it would give those four categories would give a flavor for a given character without giving too much away.
What say you esteemed colleagues?
If somebody (such as myself) thinks the list of characters will be a waste of time, they're unlikely to tell you so in a thread on 'Bs'.
Incidently, I think it's a daft idea that isn't really needed and will only lead to more 'heated debate' as we have already seen on some very trivial matters. Oh noes! Someone has 3 points more in their Sg than human average, but nowhere in their profile does it say how clever they are! Ack! Etc, etc.
I'm all for trying to help people when they're just starting out with the game, but to be honest I don't really see why people seem to find this whole stats thing so difficult. There are loads of places you can look to for help in choosing stats - the rulebook, the 'Conclave standard' thread, profiles of characters you're likely to face. Would adding yet another place to look actually help? Or would it just be another set of profiles to argue over because they're not consistent with what it says elsewhere? And unless enough people who attend one of the Conclave events step forwards and post their character profiles to get a meaningfully large sample size, this idea is not likely to be of use to anyone anyway.
I've been thinking some more about how to help new players when it comes to creating stats for their characters and although I do want to help I really don't know the best way to proceed. As I see it there are a few options...
Firstly there are the descriptions in the rulebook, 'competant', 'expert' etc - we could expand that list so every 10 point range has a description against it. But we'd still be still left with the question of what constitutes 'competant' for example, and I don't see any way to define that unambiguously.
Secondly, there's the route Cade tried with his list of archetypes - so a typical Guardsman might have a Balistic Skill of 60, a Stormtrooper might be 75 (or whatever the values in his list were). But that obviously that approach didn't really help as people still find it difficult to assign stats.
I see a few other options - we could define a baseline position and then what sort of training/experience might be needed to increase that. (Ignore the numbers for now, it's the approach I want opinions on.)
QuoteThe vast majority of untrained humans would have a natural Ballistic Skill in the range 20-40. Most planets will give members of their Defence Force some training and this will likely add between 5 and 20 to the character's natural Ballistic Skill (with characters who already had some natural ability likely seeing a smaller increase due to a training regime which generally only aims to make everyone competant rather than develop the skills of the best shots). Characters who have been trained by elite fighting forces such as the Imperial Guard, Arbites or Cadian PDF will likely see an increase to their natural Ballistic Skill by between 10 and 30 points. A veteran of many wars who has honed his shooting skills in battle, or a character who has undergone training to make him 'the best of the best' (for example a stormtrooper or Imperial Guard sniper), might increase his Ballistic Skill by an additional 5-10 points. Only the very best natural shots who have undergone an inordinate amount of training (such as that practised by the Vindicare Temple) will have a Ballistic Skill much above 80.
Or, rather than define character archetypes with a single value, we could give ranges that we'd expect an 'average' character to fall into. For example (again, ignore the actual numbers for now);
QuoteUntrained human: 20-40.
PDF Trooper: 25-60
IG Trooper/Arbites: 30-70
Veteran/Elite Trooper: 60-80
Highly Trained: 80+
But I don't see how that approach is much different from looking at the Ballistic Skills of the archetypes in Cade's list.
Or we could take a completely different approach and look at what each statistic represents and how it works in the game. So simplifying Ballistic Skill slightly;
QuoteBallistic Skill represents a character's ability to hit a static, man-sized target at the optimal range of his gun without aiming or even raising the gun to eye level. If you think your character should be able to hit 50% of the time under those conditions, then his Ballistic Skill should be 50. Or if you think your character would be able to hit that target 90% of the time if he simply raised the gun to eye level (one aim action), then his Ballistic Skill should be 70. If you think he'd need to aim for a moment (a second aim action) before making each shot to hit 90% of the time then his Ballistic Skill should be 50.
The idea of making a list of characters that people are happy with so novices can see how their creations compare does have some merit, but I think the practical difficulties of compiling such a list will kill that one. (But on that subject, if someone is planning to attend the Spring Conclave and is really stuck as to what stats they should give their character - PM me and I'll compare your character to ones I've used at such events in the past and will offer what advice I can.)
So, to all the people who either have difficulty, or have had difficulty, in working out what stats are appropriate for their characters - what approach would you find most helpful? Is it that working out stats is actually difficult? So you go to choose your character's WS, look at the rulebook and read 'A competent human's WS would be between 50 and 60, while an expert swordsman may have a WS of 80 or more.' and then don't know where your character should fit on that scale? Or is it a confidence thing? I.e. you've chosen stats that you think are okay but want some way to know if they're fair/balanced/appropriate/justified/reasonable? I'm not sure which way to approach things.
- Dave
Quote from: Kaled on March 11, 2010, 06:03:02 PM
Firstly there are the descriptions in the rulebook, 'competant', 'expert' etc - we could expand that list so every 10 point range has a description against it. But we'd still be still left with the question of what constitutes 'competant' for example, and I don't see any way to define that unambiguously.
This is actually something that I think would help me. Whilst it's ambiguous, even getting some opinions would help me. Whilst I'm keen for my gaming group to develop a flavour of its own and achieve internal consistency, I'd still appreciate some guidance - perhaps even reassurance - to help me feel more confident with character creation. Even a short sentence after each increment would help. I can't speak for everyone, of course.
Looks good Kaled. Just feel sorry for the person who has to do the rest of the stats.
Some interesting points raised by Kaled. I see the point about raw stats still leaving some ambiguity about how individuals interpret and apply ranges to thier characters.
QuoteOr we could take a completely different approach and look at what each statistic represents and how it works in the game
Now that approach gets me
very interested, as it helps to flesh out what the stat will actually mean in game terms, and therefore lets me design my character so that the stats I assign provide a (broadly) desired effect. Excellent!