[DigitalZombie]

Im looking at houseruling some numbers and stuff in the priority table. More specifically there are some elements I dont like with the numbers of attributes, and the mechanics of the adjustment column and magic/resonance column. (Input to any of the remaining columns are naturally also welcome).

First of all, I generally like priority table character generations. I know many others prefer karma - but I like speed and tough choices of the priority table.

1: buffing the attributes column.
I like having maximum 1 attribute at racial maximum, BUT also max 1 attribute at racial minimum.
Naturally that last part is a penalty for some character builds- but by buffing the attribute table somewhat that shouldnt be an issue.
Im thinking something like this.
A:25
B:20
C:16
D:12
E:8

I think the current TWO!!  Attribute pointe at priority E is pretty useless. I think every choice should be viable- not equally viable necescarily- but at least viable for some niche builds.

2: Adjustment points column
Maybe the biggest chance... Because I definetely prefer the previous edition of lower special attribute points, but higher metahumans minimum attribute ratings.
Im not quite sure how it should look, maybe something like this?
A:elf(9), Dwarf (7), ork(7), troll(5)
B:human (10), elf(7), Dwarf (5), ork (5), troll(3)
C:human (7), elf (4), Dwarf (2), ork (2), troll (0)
D:human (3), elf (1), Dwarf (0), ork (0)
E: human (1)

Naturally this would also mean that the metatypes are back to the 2-7 and 3-8 stats and not the 1-8  stats.

Magic/resonance
Also a tricky one. The previous edition you could supplement your adepts magic score/PP with special attribute points, at the cost of adept skill points. Or at the cost og spells, skills and complex forms for the other types.
Currently you can supplement your adepts magic score with Adjustment points... for Very little benefit. Mages are a Lot Better Places though.

Im thinking of reintroducing 5th editions bonus skills or something else like that. And of course have adepts gain PP by using Adjustment points to supplement their magic score

[sigfriedmcwild]

Regarding attributes, I would point out that right now the points you get are exactly the same as the points you get from the skill priority (after you account for the 8 mandatory points allocated to having 1 in each attribute).

Given that attributes and skills are no the same karma value, that feels intentional

[FastJack]

I'm waiting for the Life Modules.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Regarding attributes, I would point out that right now the points you get are exactly the same as the points you get from the skill priority (after you account for the 8 mandatory points allocated to having 1 in each attribute).

Given that attributes and skills are no the same karma value, that feels intentional

They shouldn't be though. Attributes still function on their own and cover multiple skills, it never made sense in 5e or 4e that skill group cost as much or more than attributes(4e).

[DigitalZombie]

Regarding attributes, I would point out that right now the points you get are exactly the same as the points you get from the skill priority (after you account for the 8 mandatory points allocated to having 1 in each attribute).

Given that attributes and skills are no the same karma value, that feels intentional

Thats true. But a character is a lot more usefull with E: skills, than E: attributes.
And while attributes are more valuable than skills, skill deficients are slightly easier to shore up with karma. It costs 5 karma to increase your skill from 0 to 1. While if you want to increase an attribute, it would cost you at least 10.

Maybe have magic work for adepts like this:
Adepts always start with PP equal to their magic rating (which can be increased with adjustment points as usual). Furthermore an adept gains skillpoints x2 his magic rating on the priority chart. (Just like a mage gains twice as many spells as his magic score on the priority chart).
This would mean a player could choose to start with a low magic score on the priority chart, and then adjust those numbers with adjustment points to gain magic 6, and 6 PP.
OR he could choose a higher magic priority letter, save some adjustment points, but also gain some adept skill points

Maybe also have the magic/resonance values deviate a bit more, like:
A: 5 (+1aspected)
B: 3 (+1 aspected)
C: 1 (+1 aspected)
D: aspected only at 1
E: mundane
Even though adepts arent on the D anymore they would still come out stronger. Alternatively they could have the same value as aspected.

[DigitalZombie]

The modified priority table would look like this:

Race and adjustment points                                Attributes            special
A: Elf (9), Ork/dwarf (7), Troll (5)                             25                          5(6 aspected)
B: human (10), elf (7), ork/dwarf(5), troll(3)          20                          3 (4 aspected)
C: human(7), elf(4), ork/dwarf(2), troll(0)               16                         1 (2 aspected)
D: human(3), elf(1), ork/dwarf(2)                            12                          mundane
E: human(1)                                                                  8                          mundane

Skills and Resources works as normal.
Regarding the special column: mages,, aspected sorcerors and aspected enchanters all gain twice the listed number in spells/preperations or complex forms. Adepts and aspected conjurers gain twice the listed number in skills instead. Adepts have PP equal yo adjusted magic score.

Mystic adepts?? Dunno

Question: if I were to modify the priority table to look like above, would that devaluate skills too much?  Would it be too unbalancing in general? Are there any pitfalls or suggestions?

[sigfriedmcwild]

My really quick takes on your revised table:
Skills have the highest return on investment, especially in the jump from B to A (+8 skill points)

Attributes picks are now substantially weaker

The special columns gets weird especially for Adepts: priority A is worth 15 skill/attribute points, but more importantly the steps from C->B and B->A are slightly more return than the equivalent attribute steps (6 attribute/skill points each vs 4 and 5 attributes). I guess this makes it roughly in line with attributes. For an Adept (or aspected conjurer). For everyone else it's still not a great choice to pick over C.

Metatype picks are weaker overall now, and it's really going to suck being a troll and with some edge (Troll qualities are worth 23 karma which is less than raising an attribute from 1 to 3)

[DigitalZombie]

Attributes picks are now substantially weaker

Ive buffed all the attributes compared to the original chart.  So it shouldnt be weaker. Or do you mean it because the value between the various steps arent differentiated enough?

Maybe if it looked like this instead?
A: 24
B: 18
C: 14
D: 10
E: 7
This is a step between the original chart and my 1st draft.

The special columns gets weird especially for Adepts: priority A is worth 15 skill/attribute points, but more importantly the steps from C->B and B->A are slightly more return than the equivalent attribute steps (6 attribute/skill points each vs 4 and 5 attributes). I guess this makes it roughly in line with attributes. For an Adept (or aspected conjurer). For everyone else it's still not a great choice to pick over C.

Does that mean that you see C is a too strong choice compared to the other 2? Because I was actually thinking it too weak.
Why wouldnt a mage chose A or B?

Metatype picks are weaker overall now, and it's really going to suck being a troll and with some edge (Troll qualities are worth 23 karma which is less than raising an attribute from 1 to 3)

Maybe I didnt communicate it well enough, but the troll would start out with 4 in strength and body. Thus a troll would be 6 attribute points ahead to start with. ( In principle like how 5th ed. Worked).
Naturally the argument could be that +3 strength doesnt equal 3 edge/magic or 3 other attribute points.

[sigfriedmcwild]

Attributes picks are now substantially weaker

Ive buffed all the attributes compared to the original chart.  So it shouldnt be weaker. Or do you mean it because the value between the various steps arent differentiated enough?

Apologies for that, my brain was stuck on thinking these values included the "free" points for getting each attribute to 1. If the attributes column gives more points than the skill column, why would I ever pick skills above attributes?

The special columns gets weird especially for Adepts: priority A is worth 15 skill/attribute points, but more importantly the steps from C->B and B->A are slightly more return than the equivalent attribute steps (6 attribute/skill points each vs 4 and 5 attributes). I guess this makes it roughly in line with attributes. For an Adept (or aspected conjurer). For everyone else it's still not a great choice to pick over C.

Does that mean that you see C is a too strong choice compared to the other 2? Because I was actually thinking it too weak.
Why wouldnt a mage chose A or B?

Because going from magic B to A is worth a 55 karma in attribute points and 20 karma from spells. Going from attribute B to A is worth upwards of 100 karma in attribute points (depending on exactly how you've distributed the point, but the lowest karma worth for 20 points of attributes is 4,4,4,4,3,3,3,3 while the lowest for 25 is 5,4,4,4,4,4,4,4 which is +105 karma)
Similarly magic C->B is 25 karma in attributes points and 20 karma from spells while attribute C->B is upwards of 80 karma
Skill karma values are much more varied than attribute values (because the larger number of skills allows many more low value options) but if we assume that people use the extra point to buy up a skill as much as they can, the 4 points for C->B are at least 50 points, while B->A is again 105 (buy as skill to 5 and one to 3)

Metatype picks are weaker overall now, and it's really going to suck being a troll and with some edge (Troll qualities are worth 23 karma which is less than raising an attribute from 1 to 3)

Maybe I didnt communicate it well enough, but the troll would start out with 4 in strength and body. Thus a troll would be 6 attribute points ahead to start with. ( In principle like how 5th ed. Worked).
Naturally the argument could be that +3 strength doesnt equal 3 edge/magic or 3 other attribute points.

If metatypes get their attribute "bonuses" built in, then this part probably ok, I'm not going to run the numbers right now