There are downsides, too.

Granted, orks still get a pretty good deal, as they have almost no disadvantages (mostly social), but they are there.

Giving a troll 2x (7+8+9+10)x5 Karma for a comparibly neglectible cost, OTOH.

Bye
Thanee

I'll post my 900 karma character that has a 200 karma cap on resources.... we use some tweaks to item costs (cutting out essence and permitting forbidden gear) but between swapping from bioware to cyberware equivalents and using an extra 22 karma on resources, I think near comparable die pools should be achievable. We also removed the automatics skill and moved everything into a long arms and small arms category while at the same time splitting heavy weapons into heavy weapons and missile type weapons (like grenade launchers). We also give some free contact and knowledge skills. However I still think that all told, the character would still come in under 1000 with a few tweaks.

The character is a recon long range shooter/physical infiltrator. His defense relies mostly on stealth, distance, and having a dodgy and tanky tank between him and the enemy. I'm mostly going to list out dice pools.

Spending allocation...
Attributes: 355
Combat Skills: 114
Physical Skills: 149
Social Skills: 20
Technical Skills: 60
Vehicle Skills: 18
Contacts: 22
Positive Qualities: 30
Negative Qualities: -46
Resources: 178

Resource Distribution
Augments: 199,500
Weapons/Ammo/Armor: 88,175
Vehicles: 32,975
Lifestyle: 21,100/mo for 4 separate lifestyles
Gear Stashed in Safehouses: 19,410
Drones: 27,050
Software: 22,050
Other Gear: 33,830

Which is also an important point: If an adventure says "starting characters" and people tackle it with 1000 Karma characters, the challenge will be somewhat underwhelming.

My g/f balked when I first mentioned that eventually, all the PCs in my group would get retired, and new ones would have to be made. Then I explained that I was running Missions for the group, and those adventures presuppose characters in a certain range of capability. After a while, either the PCs would not be challenged, or I'd have to spend a lot o time ramping those challenges up by reworking the Missions content to a pretty radical degree.

To her credit, her response then was "OH, well yeah, that makes perfect sense. Carry on, then!"

In BP-gen, orks get 50 bp of attributes for only 20 bp. Saving 30 bp is about as good as saving 55 karma.

That's actually my point, Umaro. The claim was made that "in Karmagen, you actually pay for what you get" ... clerly implying that it ws different from BPGen that way.

And really? On that one front, they're pretty well about the same.

Except, in BPgen, for that Ork to raise their body to "average" costs exactly as much as a human buying "average" body for their metatype: 20BP. Whereas in Karmagen, it costs the Ork 45 Karma, but the Human only 25 karma.

...

So honestly, I'd have to say Karmagen is kind of the opposite of the claim put forth.

You previously claimed BP did that better than karmagen. I agree that they are equally bad about it, but not that karmagen is worse.

Okay, see ... in BPgen, you pay 20BP to be an Ork, and then 20 per attribute to bring them all to "average Joe".

Or you pay nothing to be Human, and then still pay the exact same 20BP per attribute to be an "average Joe".

...

In Karmagen, though? After race is paid for, Orks pay MORE to be "average Joes" than Humans.

And I have a problem with that.

The problem is that you're not using the same metric of "average Joe".

Average Joe is a flat 3 in all stats. If you are an Ork, by default you're already as strong as Joe, and you've got a better body than him.

If you want to be "Average Ork", that's different. The "average" Ork has a Body of 6 and a Strength of 5. Try getting those on a human, see how much karma you spend.

~Umi

Average Joe Human has a 3 in all stats. In order to find Average Joe <insert metatype here> you would modify that by the difference in how the stat mins and maxes for the desired metatype.

I slightly disagree with you here.. when pulling 375 karma and you need to split it between 9 attributes or 10 (if you include magic/resonance). 25karma per stat gets all of them from 1->3. So that's more than enough karma to make an average Joe with 125 excess to raise a few to above average or exceptional. More if you lower a few to raise others. Even better, leaving an attribute low but not minimum doesn't penalize you later! (the whole reason I wanted karmagen to be so much better was because it elminates the 'starting penalty' which penalizes anyone who doesn't go either max or 1's in things) Since karmagen doesn't penalize for not maxing things out, there isn't so much pressure to max out any stat out of chargen.. you're not penalized for only raising a stat to 4 in chargen instead of going for 5 right away to save on karma when you go from 1->2 on something else, you don't need to feel guilty about a 4/2 split instead of 5/1 like you do with bp gen min/maxing.

Even BP here doesn't do much better 8 stats... 160BP later you only have 40 left to raise stats above average plus the specials.


And you're NOT paying for what you get with karmagen. That's exactly the problem. You end up with a package of freebies which are intended to offset the costs to raise the strengths even higher. The problem is there's no requirement to do so. Karmagen makes the 'human problem' even worse... as it stands under SR4 BP there's almost never any reason to play a human outside of RP. Attributes raises are worth far more than attribute reductions as well because attribute raises both raise the caps AND give free points, while attribute penalties only lower the cap but do nothing to increase costs in penalized attributes. An orc with 3 logic is not AVERAGE he's above average because of the logic penalty (the rules for converting NPC's between metatypes explicitly state to apply all the attributes positive and negative for example).



Touching into Umidories point... here's the problem.
Make a human with all 4's in everything. Ignoring magic/resonance.

45karma(1->4) x 8 + 35 (edge 2->4) == 395. (375 is almost good enough to go straight 4's in everything!)

Now do an orc.
Bod (0karma), Str (20karma), 45 karma x7, 20x2 karma orc == 375... however it cost the orc less AND the orc can spend 415 on attributes so still has nearly 100karma more). Toss on 10karma for human looking, and a sob story about how you goblinized as a teenager and your family kicked you out for fluffy human life span and you've got no major differences, outside that the orc can still raise body/str to levels a human can only dream of and it hasn't cost him one bit extra to raise his 'penalized' stats to softmax.

Troll?
5bod/str... already over 4... but the rest is only 7x45 + 40x2 troll == 395 again with BETTER stats with the mins. And an even higher attribute spending cap. (remember there is no requirement that those points actually be spent on body and strength).


If we now awaken the target... the ork makes out even better as he still has 80 karma to spare on attributes allowing a substantial magic attribute as well. A troll, 140.


Those arguing for special stats not to be included in the cap are effectively arguing that karmagen should produce stats substantially better than BP gen! (I can see a good case for excepting magic... but not really edge; but even in magics case... a slight reduction in starting power of a mage/techno isn't going to hurt things much).

Those also arguing for freebie knowledge and contacts... are out to make substantially MORE powerful 750karma characters than 400BP can even. In my experience 400BP normally makes a 600-650karma character easily leaving an extra 100 for knowledges and contacts! So these for free doesn't make sense if you're trying to keep 400BP comparable to 750karma character.



Pax: doing the same with what I suggested many of us came up with the last time this topic came up...
Doing all attributes 1->6 then applying racial template as if it were bio/cyber mod both positive and negative no stats allowed lower than 1 afterwards. The other half of this is it doesn't penalize players later in play to raise attributes since it costs as much for a troll to go from 9->10 as a human to go from 5->6 so you may actually see a troll raise those stats which we never see in play otherwise due to the extreme karma costs.

Human costs only change slightly... (edge only costs 25 instead of 35 to raise from 1->3+1 instead of 2->4)
Human costs: 385karma (slightly lower than above)

Orc:
Bod4, Str (10karma), Cha/Log (70karma to get to 5, then -1), 45x5, 20karma orc == 395 karma
Orc of course includes low-light vision and the much higher body/str caps! (genetic optomization can't compete for essence loss). So the package deal is actually costing something but raising str/bod to very high levels is cheaper... if we drop and accept that above average log/cha on an orc is a 3... we save 50 karma and it's not even close.


Effectively all the metas costs rise to roughly the same as a humans... there's very little mechanical benefit to choosing any of them from a points basis. Meaning that people don't feel penalized for RP choices. Though different metas still have great strengths/weaknesses play out. IE: a troll bouncer is still going to be a mountain of muscle compared to a puny human.

Not to be rude, but you're apparantly unaware that I did exactly what you are suggesting in the very post that you are quoting and commenting on...

*head scratch*

That said, "Joe Average" is the average person on the street. That average value already factors in Orks and Trolls. "Average Ork" is different than "Average Joe". They don't compare directly.

It's like if I said an "Average Joe" would be between five and a half, and six feet tall. It's stupid to say "if he's a Troll he'll be a lot taller than that!". I mean, yeah. Of course he will. He's a Troll. They're taller than your "average Joe". That's kinda what a Troll is.

The original complaint was about the increased karma costs. That a human hitting their racial average costs more than a metatype hitting their racial average when using karmagen. But my point is that karmagen operates purely on the numbers, which is actually appropriate from a game design standpoint. An ork character with a Strength of 7 is no different than a human one in regards to Strength related game subsystems. They can lift the same amounts of weight, they can throw things equally far, they deal the same melee damage codes, etc. The difference is that 1] the ork gets some of that strength for "free" (minus metatype costs) and 2] the ork has higher maximum caps. That second point is important to remember when considering the costs of metatypes - you are in fact paying for that higher upper limit when you pay to be an ork.

~Umi

I figured it was easily implicit I was talkign about "average for your metatype". In a roomfull of Orks, if your strength is 3 you're a 90-pound weakling.

There's no point in comparing a starting character to some demographic average of their chosen metatype. After qualities and resoures are paid for, an UCAS citizen pays more to be an "average Joe" than a Nigerian, because he gets no point for not having a SIN and being computer literate, and needs to spend some on Resources on getting a car, a flat and a comlink. How fair is that?

The creation system first and foremost intended to balance player characters within a gaming group, so that no player get to outshine the others. You do not get 400 BP or 750 karma to spend because it's been determined to be the statistical average amount for a person aged between 20-40 or a shadowrunner on his first run.
For the same amount of points, you should get the same dice pools. It's made a bit more complicated because here are things like future attribute maximums and the occasional social penalty with a racist that are hard to factor in.

Then, yes, there are nonetheless plenty of ways to bend and tweak SR rules to get cheesy builds that put all its teammates to shame.

Nath the problem though is you do have absolute and relative scales you need to work with. If everyone was a human and no metas whatsoever... then yeah karma would be a snap just like you say. But as soon as you add metas and have people PAY to be those metas... then it becomes a big problem. They're buying a 'package deal' as I like to put it. What exactly is in that package is the bigger question.

On one scale... yes an elf should pay more to raise agility 2->4 than a human 1->3. Because on an absolute scale 4 is bigger than three and when firing a gun that's all that matters systemwise. However the elf is also paying points up front to be an elf... and if the costs are truly geometric. Then extremely high attributes (like trolls... why is it trolls always break systems?!) are too costly for their net gain. And worse there is no requirement to actually spend those points on 'strong' attributes... so they simply get spent on 'cheap' attributes at the same price as humans but you can spend even more than a human can so take that pink skins!

That's the reason why both positive and negative attribute mods matter... the way you make different metas different is you alter their advancement costs for certain attributes. There's only a few ways to do that. But the system needs to fit in with the rest of the game, especially the character in-game advancement rules.

My POV is simple... the cost to play an above average human should be roughly the same as that to play an above average orc/troll/elf/whatever... (everybody forgets the poor dwarves see!). The racial cost should reflect these differences in terms of package deal... and currently it doesn't. Karmagen as originally written actually made the BP problems WORSE. (you needed to spend half what you did in karma on skills as you did in BP... but attributes were still far more important than skills... so raising attributes is the single best buy you can typically make in chargen). Karma reduces this problem because it'll cost you the same now as it will later to raise stats... so you're not dicking yourself out of 3 sessions worth of karma by not raising say bod from 4->5 right away in chargen and dumpstating say cha an extra point.

I'm not sure this should be the case, not unless we agree that people are *already* paying a fair amount for the metatype.

Exactly my point Yera. As it currently stands meta costs are badly off, especially in karmagen (either pre-errata or as errataed).

On an absolute scale... the meta costs need to be reasonably well balanced to reflect their package deal strengths and weaknesses.

But on a relative scale... I don't think it's really right that a troll should pay massively more to have average stats for his type than a human does for his. All the distortions in the karmagen stem entirely from the need that it takes nearly twice as much karma for a troll to go from 8->10 as a human to go from 4->6. That massive karma cost allowance difference is all too easy on 'cheap' attributes instead simply making metas better humans than humans as written!

The cost for beign a meta shouldn't be foisted off on Attributes. The strength of a Metatype (attributes, primarily) should not also be a WEAKNESS (the cost of being better than minimum).

Ideally, in BP ... every meta would start off at 0BP (their vision fairly balanced to Humans' +1 Edge). The price should go up +10BP or down -5BP for every attribute adjustment they get.

Yes, that would make metas very expensive. Well, I'm an old school SR1 vet, and I remember when the ONLY way to be a meta, was to slot up Priority A for the privilege. So I don't have a problem with metas being costly enough that fewer people play them, not at all.

But the cost, again, should be on teh Race, not hidden elsewhere in the process. Name the cost up front, where everyone can see it.

It should, if you're not paying a fair cost for the metatype. You're not paying, in general, to be 'above average' relative to your group. You're paying for power, that's all. Buying a Strength 5 should cost what buying a Strength 5 costs, unless you already paid a fair price for the initial boost you already got.

I am not endorsing the current state of karmagen. I am only saying that it doesn't *inherently* make sense for 'average way-better-than-human-thing' to cost the same as 'average crappy-normal-human'. It only does if other balances are in place.

The elf is also paying points up front to be an elf... with Agility 2 and Charisma 3 (but Edge 1).

For 0 BP/karma, humans start with Edge 2, that would cost 10 PB or 10 karma to other metatype.
For 20 BP/karma, orks start with Body 4 and Strength 3, that would cost 50 BP or 60 karma otherwise.
For 25 BP/karma, dwarves start with Body 2, Strength 3 and Willpower 2, that would cost 40 BP or 45 karma otherwise.
For 30 BP/karma, elves start with Agility 2 and Charisma 3, that would cost 30 PB or 35 karma otherwise.
For 40 BP/karma, trolls start with Body 5 and Strength 5, that would cost 80 BP or 140 karma otherwise.
There is also the added benefit of base attributes not counting toward the limit on attribute spending.

To put it another way, as far as dice pool goes, humans get 10 free BP, orks 30, dwarves 15, elves 0 and trolls 40. With karma-gen, humans get 10 free karma, orks 40, dwarves 20, elves 5 and trolls 100. That is, if the character concept fits within the minimums and maximums of the metatype. Otherwise, you can consider some of those free karma or free BP to be wasted in a way. But so can any other points spent on fluff.

Don't forget to factor in the increased maximums.

But in neither system, foes "a 5 cost what a 5 costs".

For a human, it's either 40BP or 75 Karma. For an Ork, it's either 20BP or 45 Karma. Both of them wind up being typical examples of their species.


Average should cost Average, period. If Orks are overall better than humans, then "being an Ork" is where you put the cost of that.

I agree. As I clearly said, the rightness of that depends on 'being an Ork' costing the right amount in the first place.

Even that tends to fall apart though... elves aren't really penalized... because the attributes they get boosts to are really really relevent to many skills.

Charisma is tied to tons of social skills so gets a LOT of milage (also ties into spirits/sprites).
Agility has many more active skills tied to it than most others (logic and cha being the other big 2... intution gets perception skills though)... and most of them quite useful. So an agility boost is generally a lot more useful than a strength boost.


Really the only time strength becomes an issue is when dealing with bows.. and that's because they didn't do str/2 for base damage like they did with all the others moreso than any other reason. And then you start hitting silliness of a bow doing more damage than a main tank cannon. But that's a whole nother can o worms.


Pax: your metatype costs are way too low.
The closest thing to meta's is the 20BP metagenic improvement which both raises the max and gives a free ponit as it raises the min.
Similarly.. the attribute penalty is only worth -5BP or so. -10 is being rather generous. Why?! People don't play trolls for their charisma! The cap is normally irrelevant it costs just as much to softmax human 'average' cha3 as it does for a human to play cha3. So the cap is for most purposes irrelevent!

The closest thing in game to raising a stat without increasing it is genetic optomization. Which if memory serves is 30k & .2 essence. (so call it 5BP). That's the reason I price the negative at -5BP.

Character creation is so fundamental to an RPG that it really depends on the developer's vision of the world and perhaps their targeted customer demographics.

And melee. And throwing anything. And, if the optional rule is used, Strength provides some recoil compensation.

Oh, and at my table Armor Encumbrance is determined by "Body + Strength", not "Body x 2".


A can that has long since been exterminated. Bows are lmited to Min Strength 8, now. SR4A, don't have the page numbr offhand.


20 per +1 would be impossibly ruinous. Noone would EVER play a Meta with more than one, maybe two +1's. Which then evolves everything into "humans with fake ears / fake beards / etc".


I specifically indicated -5/point for the cap reductions. And no, they're not irrelevant. A Troll makes for a very durable spellcaster or technomancer ... but the cost is, they'll never be quite as good as a human, elf, or dwarf could be. You're complaining about my price, and then counter-proposing ... the same price!!

Really 20BP too much... people pay 20BP all the time for surged metagenic enhancement, which does the EXACT SAME THING. It's the closest thing we have to a cost. My only point behind -10 was that it was half of 20. The other closest quality in game is exceptional attribute which is blown out of the water by metagenic enhancement... going by exceptional attribute standards each meta-point would be worth 30+ (20quality, 10 more for the rank)

It's just like thermographic vision or night vision (both 5BP positive qualities, one normal the other surged).


No your costs listed are completely without merit Pax. Anything of similar cost/benefit wasn't referenced at all when you pulled 10 and 5 out of thin air.

Free contacts is a houserule for BP anyway and free knowledge skills and contact under karma gen is still just a houserule. Comparatively speaking, free contacts and knowledge skills have a much lesser impact on the game compared to the impact of costs of attributes which have a considerably more active presence.



Charisma is tied for 5th as far as quantity of skills go. Logic, Agility, Intuition, and Reaction all have more skills and various skills and agility and reaction both have active skills that are open ended (Exotic Weapon/Vehicle). Logic and Intuition are open with knowledge and language skills. The benefit argument of Agility is not really the quantity of skills but the fact that agility itself is used when attacking. You have 12 skills related to weapons so most character won't be taking most of them. Having more than half of them might be an overkill. I would suspect that more than 6 weapon skills for a single character might be pushing it.

Logic: 19 + 2
Agility: 16 + 2
Intuition: 7 + 3
Reaction: 6 + 1
Charisma: 6
Magic: 6
Resonance: 3
Strength: 3
Body: 2
Willpower: 2



There's a night vision PQ for 5BP.
There's a lowlight vision MGPQ for 5BP.

The metagenetic version is superior.

Karmegen surely isn't perfect, but the problem with the metas is far less prominent there IMX.

You get those starting Attribute points (your metatype minimum) fairly cheap, but in BP you get the high-end points cheap, which is far worse.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. Humans are a very viable choice in both systems.

Of all the characters I have made, Humans come in at about 85% of them.

Actually, most people pay only 10BP for it - and some cosmetic oddness. Because to even access Metagenic qualities, most characters have to first pick up the Changeling quality.

Also, unlike a metatype, the metagenic improvement can be targeted at exactly the attribute you most want to improve.

And finally, remember that we're talking about PER POINT, where some metatypes are .... well, look at Trolls. +4 Body, +4 Strength, =1 Logic, =1 Intuition, and =2 Charisma. By my suggestion, that's going to cost 60BP. By yours, 12- or 140. Which price do you think people would look at, and say "ouch" but still occasionally play anyway? And which price do you think all but the most die-hard few would see, and say "FRELL no" ...?

he problem here is, you're forgetting that those have to include a built-in premium for being "special" compared to baseline metahumanity.

Which owuld suggest that Metagenic Enhancement is almost certainly underpriced, mind you. But that's a different debate entirely.


Wee nitpick: "night vision" is not the same as, nor as good as, "low light vision".


+10 is the cost to raise an attribute by 1 point during BP generation. So getting a Body 6 as an Ork, would cost the same as getting it as a Human. (The change to maximums is priced at 0, as it's part of a package deal AND costs further points to actually get to those maximums).

The -5 was a guesstimate based on half the +10.

And both together produced IMO much more sane Metatype costs. (Though I didn't take the time to decide what to charge for Trolls' natural armor and reach. I'd probably slap another 10-20 BP onto the final price, to account for those.)

Same here. Humans, followed by Orks, followed by Dwarves (including Gnomes). And then a smattering of Elves and Trolls. They're just what "feels right" to me, and for me.

Pax. That's ONLY because the changeling metatype (not quality) packs a negative quality in addition to the positive. Very convenient to forget that. Also even better (for the GM), the negatives can be picked by the GM not the player!

Just like you said, the cost to RAISE the attribute is 10. Now how much extra is it to also raise the attribute maximum as well?! Which is also a huge factor in making metas superior picks to humans for most purposes. I'm not talking RP... I'm talking from a pure mechanical by the numbers standpoint. Similar things in game like genetic optomization in game only raise the max without raising the attribute itself. I seriously wasn't saying exceptional is a good cost... but to say that me pointing out 20BP for metagenic improvement is bunk is rather silly on your part.


And your 'wee-nitpick" talk about not even taking the time to read the book.
Night-vision grants natural "low-light vision". Read the quality! "This means human characters with this quality gain the advantages of low-light vision" and points right at the visibility table. Nice for people who don't want to take an essence hit for cybereyes... though still rather costly 5BP quality (vs 25k in cyber out of the equipment budget instead of qualities).
The metagenic quality is literally called "Thermographic Vision"... I don't see how anyone gets these confused or calls one inferior/superior to the other... low-light is better for some uses and thermo for others.


I seem to end up with an inordinate amount of orcs, dwarfs, and occasionally elves. I've never ever found a good mechanical reason to ever play a human outside of pure RP. Also lets not forget this is 4e, not 1e-3e where it cost you a priority to take a meta. This is a prime consideration when asking how many of your characters are human. How many of your 4e chars tend to be human.

Allowing for humans starting out...
20BP for metagenic edge.

Going purely by surge costs... a troll is MASSIVELY undercosted.
5BP thermographic, 5BP elongated arms (+1 reach), 10BP Dermal Deposites. That's 20BP before even touching attributes!
160BP for 8 metagenic improvements...
-25BP for 5 impaired attributes.
call it -5 or -10 for special equipment sizing.

So even runners companion is honest that metagenic improvmeents are 4times better than impaired attributes. In my opinion the best way to make the costs come down and balance things is to actually TREAT impaired attributes as impaired attributes... not allow them to buy up to human average for human average costs.

Orcs similarly...
5BP Night vision
100BP 5 metagenic improvements
-10 for 2 impaired attributes.

Dwarves:
5BP thermographic, 10bp toxin/disease resist, 10BP toxin disease resist x2.
80BP 4 raised attributes.
-5 BP impaired attribute
-5 or -10 for special equipment size.

Elves:
5BP Night Vision
60BP worth of metagenic improvements

In each and every case, humans get the short end of the stick... including all those people who famously like to spout off that elves aren't as good as humans because humans get 10BP for free, while elves only get 30BP worth of attributes for 30BP race ignoring the higher caps which come with them!

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've played 2 elves (1 was PbP), 1 ork probably somewhere around 8 or 9 humans in SR4. (I had fewer characters in SR3--much fewer--but I played 4 humans and 1 troll back then.)

Huh?
And no one ever mentions that any metavariant can freely take 'SURGE' qualities (… right?), if you want to avoid those minor cosmetic issues.

Yeah, mine are always orks (even if I try not to), just like they were always dwarves or maybe elves in SR3.

Yes and was your primary reason for doing so RP?


My point is mainly I wish I didn't feel like I was getting completely screwed over for choosing to RP a human instead of something with a better package.

Play a human-looking ork.

Bye
Thanee

Not really. It's more that I play human more in the majority of games, though the fact that human in and of itself doesn't have a point cost does help.

63 Characters for 4E

Never made a Dwarf,
1 Elf
1 Minotaur
1 Naga
2 Trolls
2 Orks
1 Surged Human
All the rest are Base Human.

So about 88% Human, I guess

Just looking at my HeroLab portfolios (the ones that I've hung on to), and not counting the PCs for the game I'm running ("1KK" = "made with 1,000 Karmagen"; the rest are 400BP):

1KK "kid adept"; melee/stealth Adept, Changeling w/ Neoteny; HUMAN
1KK "face adept"; karmagen rebuild of face adept below; ELF
1KK "ghoul parkour adept"; posted upthread, under street name Soylent; ORK // SABONSAM
"aug hacker"; augmentation-based hacker; HUMAN
"face adept"; ELF
"hacker adept"; HUMAN
"hacker AI"; AI
"Maus"; mystic-adept go-ganger; DWARF
"Rook"; gunslinger; HUMAN
"pixie healer"; magician, pacifist; PIXIE
"rigger adept"; GNOME (dwarf)

So that's ...

4 Humans
2 Elves (and technically, it's the SAME character, built to two different standards)
2 Dwarves (including 1 Gnome)
1 Ork
1 AI

So out of 11 characters actually on-file, I have 36% human, 18% Elf (even counting it as 2 separate characters), 18% Dwarf (including metavariants), 9% Ork, and 9% AI.

Meanwhile, the players in my game? I have 1 Pixie, 1 Troll, 1 Dwarf, 1 Elf, 1 Nartaki (Human, kind of), and 1 undecided. Basically, a 1-of-each "variety pack".

Changeling is a Quality, and counts against your Positive Quality limit. It is not a metatype.


I'd estimate that 50% of the characters I've made for 4E, tend to be Human. Orks and Dwarves are 30% between them. The last 20% is a mix of everything else - elves, trolls, shifters, AIs, all of it.

Yes, in fourth edition.


That's 95BP. Almost exactly 1/4 of your starting allowance. At that price, NOONE would ever play an Ork.


95 or 100 BP. Same problem.


65BP, which is 16.25% of starting resources. You might see some people playing Elves. But still very, very few - and most of those, less about numbers and more about "elves are sexy, I'll do ANYthing to be an elf". IOW, people who would be Elf Posers IRL, if they could.

Yep, orks might be slightly underpriced, but certainly not by that much.

Bye
Thanee

I think its 20-for-55, dude. They're one of the best deals in the game.

Yeah, a no-brainer unless your concept simply can't have them.

Yeah, orks are underpriced by about 20 points...not by about 75 points like Falconer thinks.

No Umaro.. I'm using the costs AS PUBLISHED BY SR4 to illustrate how badly undercosted they are. That doesn't mean I actually believe an orc should be 100. I was taking issue with Pax's 10BP figure pulled out of thin air... which didn't reflect anything in game except the cost to raise a stat BUT NOT IT"S MAXIMUM.

IMO: a far better measure is +-5BP for a raise lower in the attribute max, then 10BP for the free point itself. Which produces far better numbers. But yes I do think orcs are underpriced by about 30 to 35 points. (not a mere 20 as you suggest).

By that measure... You're looking at about 50 points in freebie attribute rasies, Another 15 in attribute max changes. Then 5BP for low-light... which comes out to 70BP... take out 15BP towards the humans starting edge advantage... 55BP. Toss in a 10% package discount... and we're at 50BP. So we're at a figure far closer to yours than you seem to think. (I'd even toss in another -factor for short lifespan if lifespan actually got enforced... instead of this... oh he goblinzed as a teenage angst story so has a normal lifespan nonsense wasn't so prevalent... see Bull for a prime example of this).

If an orc had to pay 50BP for his race... he'd be net -10 Bp behind a human on stat values ignoring maximums. HOWEVER, he would still have the much higher body/strength limits! At 40BP you give no consideration at all to the value of the higher attribute maximums or innate abilities. Is 20 worth more or not... if you're trying to play a street tough, sam or melee adept, then probably yes it is (cha or log cap doesn't hurt you... but the bod/str caps help a lot). The cost is so close enough to 0... that it becomes ROLEPLAY decision as opposed to a MECHANICAL decision.

That's the current problem in the system... from a mechanical perspective there is no reason to play human. Especially if you're a player worried about karmic advancement costs later. If you're a GM making up NPC's...

Most character types don't really need a high strength, so the relative value of that stat is not as high as, say, agility or body.
If you're comparing stat increases with the cost of metagenic improvements, you're undervaluing edge, as that can only be raised by lucky and then purchasing one more edge, so by that notion it's worth 30 points.
The goblinized races might also warrant a slight discount because of prevalent racism towards them.

It's true, but everyone needs Strength up to 3 or 4, so that's worth it. You're not getting the benefit of the increased Strength max, it's true.

Your post is just ridiculous.
Upping the available karma from 750 to 1000 is quite logical when the cost to buy something with that karma was changed from 3xrating to 5xrating and few additional costs added too.
This doesn't have anything to do with "aversion to errata".

Surely the cost was raised from x3 to x5 because x3 was too low, because karmagen was too good? So raising the budget to 1000 just de-fixes it.