(Human) Aptitudes

[inkydood]

Stealth, evo, and invo no longer cost less xp at apt 0 than most skills at apt 0. Spellcasting no longer costs more xp at apt 0 than any other skill at apt 0. The aptitudes of every race were changed.
It is a small nerf to stealth/evo/invo and a small buff to spellcasting.

Hooray for consistency! And indeed, aptitudes have been adjusted accordingly (though, it's not really an appreciable buff or nerf then, is it..?). However, the changes do not work for Humans. Having unequal aptitudes because those aptitudes level at the same rate is totally counter-intuitive for a "blank slate" race, and IMO defeats the purpose of having one to begin with.

Crawl humans don't have to be vanilla, granted, but if that is the intended goal, then apts need to remain 0 across the board.

[galehar]

I don't see an issue with humans having a couple of +1 and -1. They are still mostly 0 anyway. And they are still "the average", it's just now apparent that spellcasting is a bit harder to learn and invo/evo/stealth a bit easier. It also applies to demonspawn and demigods for example.

Also, note that this was already the case in 0.6 when aptitudes were 100 based. Human had 130 spellcasting and 80 invo/evo. Only stealth had a hidden bonus back then.

[Roderic]

My concern is that I thought that humans don't need to be the skill "average" race but the skill reference race. And by definition any reference is set as zero, but this does not mean that there is the same number of races with skills above and below humans. Humans could very well excel in something -it is not the case- and its apt would still be 0 and the rest of races should have negative numbers.

Am I wrong? Does the skill aptitude figure affect by its own (i.e. are +2 or -1 adding or substracting to some value?) or it is a mere guide ?

Currently the % command gives a table in which 0 represents and aptitude level equivalent to human, but now humans are above average respect themselves in some skills. Inconsistency.

[ebarrett]

It's either the "inconsistency" (hint: it isn't really an inconsistency at all) of humans having nonzero aptitudes, or the INCONSISTENCY (like, totally for realz, mang) of there being more than one different value for zero.

The complaint isn't surprising at all, though, coming from the self-declared guardian protector of bad ideas.

[Roderic]

And by definition any reference is set as zero

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reference

Reference in a relative numerical scale ...

[Volteccer_Jack]

To answer in a way that's NOT deliberately and pointlessly belligerent:

Humans are the reference race. The fact that they have -1 in Spellcasting instead of 0 indicates that Spellcasting is harder to learn than other skills.

That said, the aptitude chart is deliberately and pointlessly vague, and paying much attention to it is kind of a waste of time.

[nicolae]

Humans are the reference race. The fact that they have -1 in Spellcasting instead of 0 indicates that Spellcasting is harder to learn than other skills.

The reason they have -1 in Spellcasting is because Spellcasting stopped being harder to learn than other skills, though.

[Roderic]

Now I'm confused Seems counter-intuitive. As I though -5 equals qualitatively to abysmal and -1 to something below "human" and something which has 0 should be easier to learn that something with a -1...

For a human are the same difficult learning dodging 0 APT than spellcasting with -1 currently ? Does it means that 0 Spc was harder before respect the other skills ?

Has the numerical value some truly purpose like a modifier or it is a not universal scale for each skill ?

[nicolae]

For a human are the same difficult learning dodging 0 APT than spellcasting with -1 currently ? Does it means that 0 Spc was harder before respect the other skills ?

Has the numerical value some truly purpose like a modifier or it is a not universal scale for each skill ?

It used to take less XP to level Stealth and 'vocations, and more XP to level Spellcasting. This got removed, because it wasn't intuitive or mentioned anywhere, and to compensate, everybody got +1 to their Stealth etc. aptitudes and -1 to their Spellcasting, so that the results would be closer to how they used to be.

[inkydood]

I don't see an issue with humans having a couple of +1 and -1. They are still mostly 0 anyway. And they are still "the average", it's just now apparent that spellcasting is a bit harder to learn and invo/evo/stealth a bit easier. It also applies to demonspawn and demigods for example.

The point of the changes was to increase visibility of an intrinsic penalty/bonus to specific skills. However, in the case of humans, I think those instrinsics are (and have been) damaging, at least conceptually, and this is a good opportunity for correction:

In a nutshell, humans are supposed to be a race without preference to any particular skill or skillset. Removing the modifiers on skills actually allows that to be possible. Retaining modifiers on skills in the form of aptitude changes defeats that purpose.

If humans are merely supposed to be "average," well, it's not an issue. If humans are meant to be a complete "blank slate," however, consider a change.

The complaint isn't surprising at all, though, coming from the self-declared guardian protector of bad ideas.

Would that make you the self-declared guardian of pointless ironic shitposting?

You are, without a doubt, the worst user on this forum-- every post you make just oozes with adolescent edginess. Perhaps you're gunning for pithiness, but you come off as a teenager attempting to impress strangers on an internet forum (with audacity and wit, no doubt-!). You seem fairly knowledgeable about the game, but plenty of knowledgeable players here are capable of composing their responses without unnecessary venom. Grow up.

[BlackSheep]

Is it really harder to wrap your brain around humans having a -1 Spellcasting apt and +1 Stealth/Invo/Evo apts than it is to see zeroes across the board and simultaneously remember that those skills have different base costs?

[crate]

Hooray for consistency! And indeed, aptitudes have been adjusted accordingly (though, it's not really an appreciable buff or nerf then, is it..?).

It is a small change since a +1 apt takes a bit more than 80% as much xp to gain a level as a 0 apt does (so invo/evo/stealth actually cost slightly more xp than before, or appreciably more for naga stealth which remains at +5) and a -1 apt takes a bit less than 130% as much xp to gain a level as a 0 apt does (so spellcasting costs slightly less xp than before). Whether this is "appreciable" is left for you to decide ... you probably won't notice it at all.

[Grimm]

Let's shut this down before it gets any nastier. Stop being jackasses people.