Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 02:48 AM

Personally, I think the balance is fine as it stands. Finals just ended, so I'm going to build that mage-killing rigger I've been talking about and all will be well.

However, I've heard that adepts don't get enough PP as of 4A since the attribute increasing cost (read: magic) is upped to 5X new grade in karma.
How about this:
Adept PP = magic + initiation grade.
Thus a magic 7 adept with one initiation would have 8 PP to allocate.

Opinions?

Posted by: CanRay May 6 2011, 02:51 AM

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2753 helps them out a lot more.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 02:52 AM

Indeed. I need to get that.

Posted by: CanRay May 6 2011, 02:54 AM

It's cheap, written by a fan, and seems to have gotten...

Well, we haven't torn him a new hoop, which is probably about as positive as we ever get on Dumpshock.

Posted by: Glyph May 6 2011, 02:59 AM

I think giving adepts a free power point with each initiation grade is a bit too much, but I do like the optional rule which lets adepts gain a power point instead of a metamagic when they initiate.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 6 2011, 02:59 AM

Psh, adepts get plenty. Free PP for initiation's more than mages get, and you can always be a complete munchkin and geas everything. That optional rule (from the book) amounts to almost the same thing, but at least they trade for some of the nifty adept metamagics.

Posted by: Summerstorm May 6 2011, 03:01 AM

Aye... and there are only a few metamagics (useful ones) for an adept anyway.

After Masking and 1-3 others free PP for all *g*. I allow it and use it - PP instead of metamagic on choice.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 03:09 AM

Looks like a consensus right off the bat, and I don't want awakened characters getting any more powerful than they already are. I guess no need for that rule then.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 6 2011, 03:46 AM

..waitaminute, You mean they've hosed adepts even more than the original 4th ed rules did?

So for the average Adept who starts with a 5 MA this means it will cost an additional 30 Karma to increase the attribute to 6 for that next power point after paying for initiation.

...better hope your GM is very generous with the karma awards.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 6 2011, 03:53 AM

I guess I just don't see how that's a problem or unfair, or whatever.

Posted by: Udoshi May 6 2011, 04:07 AM

The houserule I have seen used, once upon a time in a similar thread on dumpshock, basically amounted to an incentive for awakened characters to initiate and raise their magic together:

By letting the cost of initiation discount raising your magic by the same amount, which offsets the massive spike in cost under 4A rules.

Just to point out how much of a difference is, raising your magic to 7 in 4th was 21 karma. Its 45 in 4A. Oh yeah. And another 13 to initiate first.
Just think about the average rewards per session, and how much TIME it takes to get one more point. Weekly sessions? Biweekly sessions? Doing nothing else - no specializations, no knowledge skills, no binding foci or learning spells - 58 karma.

I was in an entire weekly campaign that went on for a year, and we almost broke a hundred karma total.

Posted by: Jhaiisiin May 6 2011, 04:12 AM

Also, remember the PP instead of metamagic is an optional rule. If your GM opts out and chooses not to use that, then you're stuck with initiating, running out of metamagics, and/or not having enough karma to initiate again.

In that circumstance, do people still feel they're fairly balanced with the increased magic cost? RAW without optional rules?


EDIT:
And on a side note, when the hell did I hit over 1k posts? I was certain I didn't post here *that* much... Sheesh

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 6 2011, 04:14 AM

Didn't they also double the typical karma reward? And wasn't the whole point to nerf Magic?

Posted by: Whipstitch May 6 2011, 04:30 AM

The thing about Adepts is that they seem kinda crappy right up until one of them greases your Big Bad Prime Runner by dropping through the skylight and delivering a double tap while reciting Lord Byron's Destruction of the Sennacherib. Adept Centering is really good.

Posted by: CanRay May 6 2011, 04:31 AM

Wagner, it's gotta be Wagner!

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 04:45 AM

I don't know how negating a few dice of penalties will help. Initiate grade 3 is pretty high, and ignoring 3 points of negative penalties is a drop in the bucket after you reach a dice pool of 20.

Posted by: Whipstitch May 6 2011, 04:49 AM

3 isn't drop in the bucket territory when it can apply to penalties on all Combat and all Physical skills. Beyond that, you need to consider context here. Getting 3 dice or more with Karma is a very expensive proposition for -any- archetype when you're talking about pools in the 20+ range, so that's frankly neither here nor there. Besides, one of the better ways of using Adept Centering is to shore up a character's weaknesses given that frankly it's a bit tricky to have say, a Social Adept that is much good at anything else. Being able to do Called Shots for increased DV with minimal penalies is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you're only throwing around 9 dice to begin with.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 05:02 AM

Except the called shot costs a free action (free action + simple action despite some interpretations), and the centering costs a free action. How are you going to do that?

Posted by: Critias May 6 2011, 05:08 AM

Not to put a dog in this fight (my own feelings about Adept power levels are, I like to think, pretty clear by now) -- but you can always use a Simple Action in place of a Free. So you can call a shot (free), center (free->simple), and fire once (simple) if you're wanting to have an Adept pull off something sexy and difficult.

Posted by: Whipstitch May 6 2011, 05:10 AM

You blow a Simple. It's nice for killing armored targets like drones despite wielding light weapons.

Crit beat me to it.

Posted by: Udoshi May 6 2011, 05:16 AM

It went up by about a third, as I recall.

But.

Most people tended to use old rewards out of habit/tradition, AND the Missions rewards were incredibly skewed towards the low end of things. Not sure if those ever got updated to Anniversary, or which seasons might have been affected/outdated.

I seem to recall a lot of 'what's the typical karma reward in your game' show-and-tell threads going on about the time the transition happened, as people were finding out stuff changed.



Negatory. Centering costs a free action. Centering is for mages.
Adept centering has no action cost listed.
You can also always downgrade a Simple to a Free, and use your other Simple to fire. You could even do it while double-wielding.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 6 2011, 05:27 AM

Adept Centering does require a 'centering activity', which could easily be a Free action (reading Byron?).

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 05:27 AM

Centering is centering:
"An initiate may take a Centering action to focus himself and block out distractions
in order to better resist Drain. See Centering, p. 198."

The only difference is in effect and who can take it.
"Adept Centering is similar to
the Centering metamagic (see Centering below) but only available
to adepts and mystic adepts."

As further proof, it even works the same way.
"as long as she can physically perform her chosen
method of centering."

So that's 1 simple to aim + 1 free to center + 1 free to call shot + 1 simple to attack = 2 simple, 2 free actions, which will take more than 1 IP.

If you take aim in your first IP, and call the shot as a simple instead in your second IP, then you can do it, provided the target doesn't move.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 6 2011, 05:28 AM

...haven't played 4th ed since the original version. Back then, the average Karma award was roughly in the 5 -6 range per run. With that in mind, it is as udoshi pointed out, it takes a lot of runs (which can easily last more than one weekly session) to earn that 58 Karma.

I agree, spellcasters needed to be nerfed. However unlike a mage, adepts pretty much only have one method to improve in their "craft" and that is power points.

In a 3rd ed campaign I actually experimented with "divorcing" Adepts from magic and basing the energy for powers directly on Essence (drawing the power from within one's self) with advancement available through initiation. I removed any powers that directly related to Astral space/mana (like Astral Perception or Living Focus). The concept worked pretty well and didn't unbalance the campaign.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 6 2011, 05:29 AM

longbowrocks, your view that Called Shot requires a separate Take Aim is not typical, though.

Posted by: Sephiroth May 6 2011, 05:31 AM

False false false false false. Taking aim when calling a shot is totally unnecessary.

Posted by: Epicedion May 6 2011, 05:31 AM

You don't have to aim:

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 05:32 AM

I thought we discussed this a few threads ago. Weren't you one of the people to shoot down the guy who suggested that Called shots only required a free action?

Going by this:
"A character can aim (see Take Aim, p. 148) and then call a
shot at the time of the attack."

In other words, a character can spend a simple action to take aim, then a free action to call the shot.

*
"A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action. See Called Shots, p. 161. This action must be immediately followed by a Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Unarmed Attack."
ah, forgot about that.

Posted by: Machiavelli May 6 2011, 01:55 PM

And again...the old topic "magic users are too powerful". And please take note: we are in the topic "are adepts nerfed". MUAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 6 2011, 02:03 PM

Yeah, me neither, and I like Adepts...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 6 2011, 02:08 PM

I DO feel it is balanced with the Increased Magic Cost. Increasing your Magic should not be something that is done overnight. RAW without Optional Rules Indeed. We have a couple of GM's for our Table. Some use the optional rule, others do not. It's all good. I also have yet to run out of Metamagics for the Adept. There are as many Metamagics for the Adept (or very close to it anyways) as there are for the Magician, and some of them can be taken multiple times.

With the advent of the Way of the Adept. I expect (or at least hope) to see more diverse Adepts in the future as well.

Posted by: sabs May 6 2011, 03:04 PM

Call a Shot
A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action. See Called Shots, p. 161. This action must be immediately followed by a Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Unarmed Attack.

A character may “call a shot” (aim for a vulnerable portion of a target) with this Free Action. See Called Shots, p. 161. This action must be immediately followed by a Take Aim, Fire Weapon, Throw Weapon, or Melee Unarmed Attack.

Called Shots do not have to be followed by a take aim. But certainly it can be.
So assuming the weapon is already 'ready'. It would be
Call Shot (free), Centering (free), fire weapon (simple) That's not terrible.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 04:18 PM

Well, you would end up using your entire Action Phase since one of those free actions would have to be downgraded to a simple action. I miss D&D.

Actually, I don't even see any rules for trading actions, so if your GM was being ornery, he could just rule it impossible.

Posted by: sabs May 6 2011, 04:24 PM

Simple Actions
A Simple Action is one step more complicated than a Free Action and requires a bit more concentration to attempt. Only a few Simple Actions, however, require a Success Test to accomplish.
Simple Actions can only be taken on a character’s Action Phase. During his Action Phase, a character may take up to two Simple Actions or one Complex Action. An extra Free Action may be taken in place of a Simple Action (so the character would get two Free Actions and one Simple Action, or three Free Actions, instead of one Free and two Simple Actions).

Page 147 SR4A
So he could, but then he's being a complete dick whose not following the rules.

Posted by: longbowrocks May 6 2011, 04:27 PM

Alrighty then.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 6 2011, 04:30 PM

Heh...

Posted by: sabs May 6 2011, 04:36 PM

My PDF Search-Foo is strong.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 6 2011, 04:41 PM

Indeed it is... May you never miss a keystroke...

Posted by: Udoshi May 8 2011, 12:11 AM

I think the easiest way to do this would be to change combat spells to work like the rest of the combat system.
IE: You can dodge and soak it.
Also, remove or limit overcasting - this should make object resistance, nets hits, and having a decent Magic score suddenly a LOT more important.

On a sidenote, I heard a good/decent houserule for Overcasting that changed overcast spells to stun damage(not physical), but also removed the Force/2 component from drain calculations.(that is, Full Force on drain) It won't KILL you, but it will very easily knock you out and ramp over into overflow.

Posted by: Glyph May 8 2011, 12:32 AM

Spellcasters only got nerfed to the extent that everyone got nerfed. The higher cost is for all Attributes. So the ork looking to raise Body from 7 to 8 will be spending more, too. It does mean that GMs need to revise how they balance money and karma, if they want to keep augmented and awakened characters on comparatively equal footing.

Honestly, while I was annoyed that they did this so soon after Runner's Companion came out, and dragged their feet on an errata for the karmagen system, it makes sense. Raising an Attribute should cost at least as much as raising a skill group does.

Posted by: Makki May 8 2011, 12:43 AM

Magic is so strong, because you resists with only one attribute (Will, Body or Int), while everything else is a skill+attribute test in the game. even against guns one can use full Dodge. People should be allowed Full Magic Dodge. Either allow non-magical character get Counterspelling for this purpose or use Willx2. Problem solved.

Wait, this is an Adept thread...

Posted by: Muspellsheimr May 8 2011, 09:11 AM

Adepts, Rules as Written are bad (exception: highly specialized niche builds such as social or hacking are strong, but still usually stronger as an augmented adept).

My solution (that I have actually tested quite a bit) was to revise the Power Point cost of a significant number of adept powers. Overall, this resulted in improving adepts significantly without making them overpowered, and in some areas their power was reduced somewhat.

This change was used in addition to a number of other rules, most notably that players could use the "Purchase additional metamagics" rule at 15 Karma each (with the usual maximum of Magic bonus metamagics), and that adept & mystic adept characters could gain a Power Point as a metamagic (with a maximum number of times equal to initiate grade). This resulted in well balanced and playable adept characters.

Other relevant rules in place where a hard limit of 7 Magic/Resonance (with normal augmented maximum rules for Essence Drain and similar boosts), 5 Initiate/Submersion Grade, and increased Initiation/Submersion costs to 10 + (5 x new Grade).




Recently, however, I have been thinking of changing the metamagic power point rule. Instead, it would be a metamagic available to adepts/mystic adepts that granted (Initiate Grade ÷ 2) power points, rounded up. As a 'normal' metamagic, it can only be taken once.

I have not done any actual play testing with this yet. On paper it appears to be far stronger, but far more restricted, than the typical optional rule. I feel it is a more balanced option and stronger mechanical execution at this point.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 8 2011, 02:47 PM

This is an Interesting Option. I would be quite interested in hearing how it plays out.

Posted by: Whipstitch May 8 2011, 03:45 PM

You might want to phrase that idea differently here on dumpshock given that the division sign is a bit tough to tell apart from a plus sign with some display settings. For a split second I thought you were suggesting that Grade 3 could result in 5 power points. That conversation could have been rather heated.

Posted by: Dez384 May 8 2011, 04:51 PM

You can't dodge magic because its doesn't have an actual physical form; it is a bond between caster and and the casted upon. This is why area of effect spells don't affect people in the radius that the caster cannot see.



There does exist as an equivalent of dodge for magic: counterspelling. It allows you to dodge, and you don't even have to use an action for full defense. Allowing mundanes to take counterspelling would be silly as seeing as how they don't have a magic stat and would have a small dice pool. It would also take up valuable bp/karma that could be allocated elsewhere.

Bottom line:
Magic must defeat Magic.

Posted by: Halflife May 8 2011, 04:57 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-qLC_ptImo

Posted by: Falconer May 8 2011, 05:03 PM

Muspellsheimr:

I've played under someone who combined those two optional rules. It is bad, horrendously bad. The only reason it didn't spiral out of control was because the adept players were new and didn't know the system well enough to make full use of it.

I have two major issues with it.

One the optional rule says "When they initiate they may... IE: not whenever they learn a metamagic... only when they initiate." The cost to learn metamagics is extremely low in comparison to magic attribute costs. The rules were never meant to be combined. (and don't combine well)
Two: when it was written 15 karma was the going rate to raise magic from 4->5... now it's the cost to go from 2->3... so it's almost always far cheaper to go that way. With the SR4a costs it's a bit too undercosted.



I haven't seen any problem w/ allowing adepts to gain 1PP when they gain an initiation, then pay 15karma more for a metamagic if they so choose in addition (there are few enough adept metamagics). This isn't that bad and adequately addresses the issue.

Caveat: I haven't seen way of the adept yet... and I suspect it includes some noticable power creep for adepts.


As far as the Magical/Techno vs mundane bits... I think the bigger problem are the skill caps in the first place. Especially for humans (who don't have any attribute boosts in place). I would much rather see substantial changes to the system to lessen the importance of attributes and increase the influence of skills. Experimentally it might be better to uncap skills but at a higher costs for non-mundanes. (IE: normal chars continue to advance skills at normal cost... while non-mundanes need to pay say 50% more).

Actually that thought gives an idea for something which might make people play humans... a 25% discount on skills for human characters... (instead of 4BP pre rank that works out to 3... and isn't too hard to figure in karma either).

One of the reasons that spirits 'break' after force 6 is their skills are still equal to force... (I've played w/ a houserule that spirit skills == half force... and that seems to have helped a bit).

Posted by: Irion May 10 2011, 03:41 PM

It would be a good idea to raise the caps for skill. Lets say up to 10 (11 with quality).

Giving humans a discount on skills is a two edged sword.
The mundane would only pile up a lot of different skill, making the char very soon no more fun to play.
(A reduction of 25% does not sound like a lot, but consider the fact, that humans do not even have high attributes to spend their Karma. It basicly means a character with 10 skill would end up with 13 (and 1/3) skills.

For mages beeing human would become one of the best choices.

The rule of getting a power point per initiation and adding the initiation technic for 15 Karma is making it quite easy for adepts to get a lot of powers.
instead of raising your phyiscal skill group from 5 to 6 you just take 4 times the increase skill power for an initiation. (The technic you get for 15 Karma)
This (at least for the first few initiations) means you are getting a powerpoint for 15 Karma.
In this case here this powerpoint is worth 5*6=30 Karma. (If you do it with single skills it is wort 2*6*4=48 Karma)
(At least it caps out, when it does not pay off to get another rank of initiation and an additional MT.

The rules out of the way of adepts. A typical example for a rule trying to do both:
Making a significant impact, while trying not to change the balance too much.
This is achieved by limiting the amount of powers you are allowed to get with the discount.
So with magic 6 (warriors way) you would only get a discount on for example three times combat sence for a total of 1.5 Powerpoints. Resuliting in a discount of 0.375. Practically nothing.

But you could also choose increased reflexes 3 for 4 Powerpoints, resulting in a discount of 1 PP. (A typical rule leading to the urge to optimize your character.

Posted by: Mardrax May 10 2011, 05:05 PM

And completely skew every balance the game has built in?

Posted by: Tyro May 10 2011, 05:36 PM

Most Attributes (exceptions: Body, Charisma) can be improved directly with 'ware (Willpower with a Pain Editor, Intuition with genetic infusion), and Body and Charisma can be sort-of improved with 'ware (Bone Lacing for damage resistance, symbiotes for improved healing, tailored pheremones for Charisma). Magic cannot.

Posted by: Mardrax May 10 2011, 05:40 PM

Magic can be sort-of improved by foci.
Granted, adepts don't benefit much from this.

Posted by: Tyro May 10 2011, 05:56 PM

Yet another reason I love mystic adepts all out of proportion to their actual in-game effectiveness.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 10 2011, 09:45 PM

Mystic Adepts are indeed fun...

Posted by: Irion May 10 2011, 11:14 PM

How?

Posted by: Mardrax May 10 2011, 11:29 PM

By making sure damage is significantly increased, armor decreased, people can jump significantly farther, run significantly faster, sneak better, see more, drive better, hacks faster, making the chance for glitches even more infinitesimally small.
Need I go on?

Posted by: Irion May 11 2011, 12:10 AM

You are talking about 4 more dices.
Thats about one additional net hit.
(Compare those to all the other elephants in the room and it does not look that bad)

I mean if the damn emo toy give you about 6 dices.

Posted by: Whipstitch May 11 2011, 01:37 AM

That'd hit me as a pithier response if it wasn't for the fact that a pretty hefty contingent of dumpshockers were less than pleased by the introduction of the non-sensical li'l bastards. Beyond that, emotitoys and skill cap raises do not constitute an apples to apples comparison in any case given that the former is effectively a damn near global dice pool increase whereas without some serious tinkering the latter is just an incentive for people to sink even more into skills to keep up with the opposed test arms race. In effect, all emotitoys did was create a world in which the more charismatic man still wins, but even the stammering wallflowers rarely ever glitch even in the midst of a high stakes negotiation thanks to the fact that just about everyone now has a cheap way to score 6 dice. That's unfortunate, in my opinion-- in fact it's unfortunate enough that I decided to just ban them on first sight and keep playing the same way I had been playing for roughly two years-- but someone who doesn't actually like the notion of glitches may like them enough to disagree. Either stance is fairly reasonable. It also doesn't hurt that so much is left up to the GM when it comes to judging the results of an opposed social test either. Even the results of a critical success may not necessarily amount to much more than a nice bonus to your next social test versus that target anyway-- people can still only accomplish things that are within their power, after all.

Raising the skill cap across the board, on the other hand, manifestly gives the specialists more room to trounce the generalists and the defaulters in their niche while also making people demonstrably better, faster and stronger in any given unopposed test. So go ahead and argue that it's a good change if you want. Just please don't sugarcoat and minimize the breadth it. And remember: raising the skill cap also increases the modified skill cap. So a magic 4 bio adept could end up having a skill of 15 right out of chargen with a combination of Reflex Recorders and magical talent. I'm not very comfortable with that given that these jokers also can pick up Adept Centering after a few runs as well.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 11 2011, 01:58 AM

Well Said...... Bravo...

Posted by: Irion May 11 2011, 08:13 AM

@Whipstitch,

It would not. Giving them more Karma would.
As a matter of fact mundane could (if their Karma reaches about 150) not have stacked

What would happen if you would really enforce the skill descriptions in the book and tell your players:
No, you can't be a Shaquille O’Neal, Ghost-Who-Walks-Inside, The Wright Brothers etc. all rolled in one person. (Ok, the street knowledge skill goes up only at 7 but they are strange anyway)

If you look at most of the chars posted here, the Sams close to every time get their 6 in with one Firearm. So the skill they want to use is allready maxed out.
And as a matter of fact, there is no reason to not max out skills or even skill groups.
Maxing out athletics costs only 6*5+5*5= 65 Karma. (Not a bad deal for 8 additional dices, 8 Karma per dice)
(You could only get a other skill group up to 4, so it would not realy be a better option since you would not use this skill group as often)

It is not that mundanes would not have a lot of Karma to fling around compared to adepts.
This means you end up with only adepts beeing able to specialize further.

If you raise the skill maximum players would tend to stick to a more "realistic" char while still having the feeling to improve.

There would be less player trying to hit the 10 (which would be between Shaquille O’Neal and Michael Jordan) because the Karma cost would be to high to borther.
10*2= 20 for a single point in a single skill.
As a matter of fact I think you would just see a sam in general with 7 or 8 in their main skill and around 5 to 6 in their support skills.
Same naturally is true for a skill group:
Would you max out Firearms for (9+10)*5=95 Karma while this would get you one skillgroup from 1 to five and an other from 1 to 3 ?
Even if it is your most used skill group and you use it 3 times more often than the other two the other it would still be a good deal.

How is it now:
A SAM might go through every book picking up martial arts and other stuff or he ends up with putting every skill up to max. While mages and adepts have a close to infinite potential.
So after a while the SAM and the hacker start competing in the other ones area, beacause it ain't that much of a Problem to get 6 dices in two skill groups (Karma 110 Karma, thats what a mage pays for magic 5 to 8.

It is even worse with characters beeing not so far apart: A Sam and a Face for example.
The Face will end up with at least one fire arm skill up to 6 making him as good as the Sam in most runs.

Posted by: Udoshi May 12 2011, 11:07 PM

The problem with the Skill Chart you're using to base your 'generic you're-so-good-at-blank' comparisons is that the chart itself is rubbish.

It literally doesn't account for situational bonuses or raw talent(attribute). In fact, when the # shifts by -one value- you're suddenly up a grade on the world-class-talent-o-meter.

in a game all about stacking the deck in your favor, it quickly falls apart, because most bonuses come in the flavor of +2. Like Hot Sim. Or Analytical Mind.


No, I've found the best way to incorporate the feeling of 'you know your shit more than joe average' is to use the following houserule: Having the right Knowledge Skill lets you teamwork test your own tests. Its what our group uses, and its worked out fairly well so far. I would, however, suggest putting a cap on the bonus dice equal to the knowledge skill.(or possibly half it).
Instead of people maxing out their skill and being done with it, branching into other specialties, or tracking down the last few pieces of gear they need for extra dice - they now start improving their Knoweldge skills for things they use a lot.

Posted by: Yerameyahu May 12 2011, 11:38 PM

Nah, that's just ever-more DP creep.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein May 13 2011, 01:54 AM

Indeed...