[quote=tobiax]Oh, and red flag- an athleticism of one would basically mean your character is medically feeble, or in need of support devices (oxygen tank, wheel chair, limb braces, etc.). And normally I would say that a five star intellect is mostly out of reach, being a practical doctorate, if we can mainly confine it to strategic logic and things like that, and not have it spill into like, history or biology or language, we should be fine. Only allowing it because he's a chess genius. And a five star psychology isn't necessarily safe, as it could render illogical events more damaging.
[/quote]

R...really? That seems...poorly designed tbh. Why would that even be a possible situation? Like...I think that kind of rating system is awfully...bizarrely specific, for lack of a better word. What's the point in having a rating that's borderline characteristically impossible to have? Why would 1-star rank (on a 5-star rating system mind you) be such a disaster? Why does a 5-star rank get penalized for something when none of the other stats do that? None of that makes any sense to me. What's the point in allowing the player to create their own ratings if the GM will just either outright decline what was created for such weird reasons? Especially when nothing about that was ever mentioned at any point anywhere.

Why would you not just make it a simple skill ranking? It doesn't have to have equivalents to things. As in...just a proficiency rating. 1-star just meaning you're not very good at a thing and 5 meaning you're superbly good at a thing?