Talk:Attributes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:Da next pope|Da Next Pope]] ([[User_talk:Da next pope|talk]]) 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT) |
[[User:Da next pope|Da Next Pope]] ([[User_talk:Da next pope|talk]]) 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT) |
||
: Firstly, I've been playing for *years* and have only ever seen it referred to as it is here, I forget the initial reasoning, but anyway... for why I think current is better. |
|||
: It makes it *easy* to see where each race has a bonus or a negative in which stats, you can see at a glance, that Elves don't do well with strength for example! --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 22:42, 17 April 2007 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 21:42, 17 April 2007
Is there a reason for displaying the costs for stats in this fashion? It seems like it makes it more complicated than it needs to be. Wouldn't it make more sense to just list the cost per point? Something like:
| Dwarf | Elf | Elothean | Gor'Tog | … | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength | 3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | … |
| Reflex | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | … |
| … | |||||
And the equation simply becomes current attribute × racial cost
Da Next Pope (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
- Firstly, I've been playing for *years* and have only ever seen it referred to as it is here, I forget the initial reasoning, but anyway... for why I think current is better.
- It makes it *easy* to see where each race has a bonus or a negative in which stats, you can see at a glance, that Elves don't do well with strength for example! --Callek 22:42, 17 April 2007 (CDT)