Quote from: Doctor Jest;594590It's not massive no, because of how the competence curve works in Savage Worlds. Obviously a specialized character will always be better at their specialty, but there isn't a necessity to specialize in order to be good at something, either. I think Tommy specialized deliberately to point out how different he could make the characters, something that would be harder with characters with a broader focus.

Ultimately, since there is no cap on advancement, you don't need to top out where Tommy topped his character's out at, either, so you could have a gentler specialization curve, or switch specializations after a certain point, etc. there is no absolute limit on advancement. And Savage Worlds is a great system if you want a generalist character and a generalist wouldn't be at any great disadvantage amongst a team of specialists. It also supports specialization for those who truly want to be the very best.

Yeah, Doctor Jest is pretty spot on here. I could have gone on indefinitely, but opted not to. And I did, especially with the two melee fighters, try to overspecialize to prove a point.

I also did a similar example with a pair of Deadlands-based knife throwers (thanks to an odd search result that showed up in my blog stats):

http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/2011/05/savage-worlds-characters-deadlands.html

Quote from: Votan;594571Good point.

That being said, the way you did the other 4 characters was really, really useful for understanding how SW characters advance and differentiate themselves.  There does seem to be a massive trade-off between versitility and being really good at what you want to do.

The sniper is just scary and the leader is quite good at feeling like a leader.

Especially with the Savage Worlds Deluxe rules change of Wild Cards being affected by Leadership Edges.

Incidentally, I've had someone tell me they've used my Fearless Leader in play and had a blast with him.

Quote from: dbm;594669The rules are very clear:

Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

The mutually exclusive bit is you will either use inches x2 OR inchesx2x2.5 but never both, as they are two different scales.

Also each range band gets the 2.5 multiplier when using that scale, not just long range.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594735Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

The mutually exclusive bit is you will either use inches x2 OR inchesx2x2.5 but never both, as they are two different scales.

Also each range band gets the 2.5 multiplier when using that scale, not just long range.

Ah, so you *did* mean inches x 2 OR inches x 2 x 2.5 ? A factor of 2.5 is pretty substantial, though. I dunno, it somehow seems weird.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594735Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

I didn't put any units in my post, I simply showed how the rules as written produce the numbers in the example they give. Both match, so the rules are clear.

• The x2 factor is used for converting from table inches to 'real world yards'.
• The x2.5 factor is used for converting from effective range to theoretical maximum range.

Can't be much clearer than that.

Quote from: dbm;594914I didn't put any units in my post,

But I did.

QuoteI simply showed how the rules as written produce the numbers in the example they give. Both match, so the rules are clear.

And that hasn't been in dispute. I'm sill not sure what point you're trying to make.

Quote

• The x2 factor is used for converting from table inches to 'real world yards'.
• The x2.5 factor is used for converting from effective range to theoretical maximum range.

Can't be much clearer than that.

No. Both determine real world yards.

Tabletop effective range scale: inches x 2 = yards
Non-tabletop "real world" range scale: inches x 2.5" x 2 = yards

You use one scale or the other, but you would not use both in the same combat.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;594909Ah, so you *did* mean inches x 2 OR inches x 2 x 2.5 ? A factor of 2.5 is pretty substantial, though. I dunno, it somehow seems weird.

It is weird. Which is why I recommend just ignoring it and using the inches x 2 = yards and ignoring the other. You don't lose anything. I really think it was just put in to placate enthusiasts who wanted to run non-tabletop games with "realistic" ranges. You can safely ignore it.

The text is somewhat confusing because both ranges in yards are referred to as "real world" ranges. Also, elsewhere in the books they only mention the x2.

I somehow got the impression that what they meant to say was:

range in inches x 2 = effective range in yards
range in inches x 2.5 = "real world" range in yards

because that seems to make more sense, but would of course contradict the example they use later on. Anyway, I'll just stick with the x 2 as suggested.

Or you could ask the man himself:



Like I said, the rules are quite clear.

I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Interestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

Quote from: dbm;595260Like I said, the rules are quite clear.

The rules don't actually say that, so no, obviously it's not quite clear.

For example, if I'm shooting an an enemy with my M2 Browning 50 Cal (50"/100"/200"), my range bands in yards are:

"Effective Table Top": Short: 100 yards, Medium 200 yards, Long 400 yards
"Real World": Short; 250 yards, 500 yards, 1000 yards

The enemy is 250 yards away. If we're using BOTH scales above, as you say the rules are quite clear on, what's my range penalty? If it's perfectly clear, there should be no ambiguity on that, but using both scales rather than using them as mutually exclusive complications and obscures gameplay.

Rather, like I said, using the "real world" range going to be a weird edge case for most of us that we probably won't have to worry about.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595273I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Meaning, what exactly?

QuoteInterestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

That's not exactly true.

Being frustrated with Godlike lead to them playing a WWII game with Great Rail Wars, which already existed. That event was one of a series of things that happened over the course of several days and the following weeks that led Shane Hensley into Looking more closely at Great Rail Wars which led to him designing Savage Worlds.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595301Meaning, what exactly?

Exactly.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595303Exactly.

Ah-ha. Clever.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595273I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Interestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

surely you mean Deadlands?