Professionalism, A better scale. Options

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

The main trouble with nanites is the stupid high essence cost of nanohives. The simple workaround is to get a cyberlimb of some kind. Even a hand or foot can hold a couple nanohives.

Yeah, I'm considering chopping off a foot so I can put a cyberfoot with a nanohive inside. I still don't get why it is so Essence-costy.

[Sponge]

Good points and things I took some time to think of. But the fact is those bonus DP should be considered when comparing to this chart. For instance, someone with a Skill 3 + Agi 3 and no smartgun, is going to get the same kind of spread as someone with Skill 1 + Agi 3 + smartlink. And thus even though one is more 'skilled' they are equal in any regards that matter to an outside observer. The only real difference is that the one person can pick up a smartlink and become better. Thus, while he has no smartlink, he is only of about 'trained' quality, but when he has a smartlink he is of 'apprentice' quality. It's kind of a "I don't care how you get the job done, so long as you get it done."

Reason I don't want to look at Stat+Skill and ignore bonuses is this creates the same problem that the book has in that it looks at just Skill and ignores Stats which make up a large part of a persons DP. For example, a professional is a skill 3 in SR, regardless of stats. So if you have someone with Skill 3 + Stat 2 vs someone with Skill 1 + Stat 5, the second person is going to be better at doing that thing, even though he is 'less skilled'. Personally I'd like my professional mechanic to be defined by how well he can actually fix a car, not how long he has spent learning to fix cars.

I think you're missing the whole point of the original examples in the book here. I believe they're meant as guidelines to help players (and GMs) design characters, based on already knowing the concept ahead of time, to decide how many skill levels you should consider buying if you want to achieve a particular concept. If you start adding in all kinds of dice pool modifiers, you can't really say how much is due to the character's skill, their raw talent, or their spiffy equipment.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think you're missing the whole point of the original examples in the book here. I believe they're meant as guidelines to help players (and GMs) design characters, based on already knowing the concept ahead of time, to decide how many skill levels you should consider buying if you want to achieve a particular concept. If you start adding in all kinds of dice pool modifiers, you can't really say how much is due to the character's skill, their raw talent, or their spiffy equipment.

Actually I think that is the point of this thread. The original skill descriptions don't help players much because they give a false picture of how good your character is at in a particular skill. The total dice pool helps a player design there character more because it gives more accurate description of there overall skill level in the skill in question.

[Sponge]

Actually I think that is the point of this thread. The original skill descriptions don't help players much because they give a false picture of how good your character is at in a particular skill. The total dice pool helps a player design there character more because it gives more accurate description of there overall skill level in the skill in question.

But a character with a skill of 5 and an attribute of 1 is a completely different concept from a character with a skill of 1 and an attribute of 5. And whether they have a smartlink/cyberware/other dicepool bonus is again a separate concept question.

[Shinobi Killfist]

But a character with a skill of 5 and an attribute of 1 is a completely different concept from a character with a skill of 1 and an attribute of 5. And whether they have a smartlink/cyberware/other dicepool bonus is again a separate concept question.

The concept might be different, but the end result is the same. In play 1/5 and 5/1 get the exact same number of successes. I don't think its very hard for a player to figure out where most of his dice come from so that effects the concept, but how he acts and looks in the game ends up being based on total dice pool.

[Chutzpah]

I totally agree with Sponge. And there's even a different cost in BP: skill 6 + att 1 (24bp) \ Skill (1) + Att 6 (65bp!!!) (that makes a HUGE difference)

If you think a skill level doesn't mean a thing when i cames to the actual result, maybe there's an easier way to fix this up:
> You may simple determine a limit for hit points based on the skill level (actually the opposite of Magic related actions...). Spending Edge could make that limit disappear.
> I would put a limit of (Skill +1 or +2) hits. For defaulting the limit would be only one hit.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/scatter.gif)

[Karoline]

I think you're missing the whole point of the original examples in the book here. I believe they're meant as guidelines to help players (and GMs) design characters, based on already knowing the concept ahead of time, to decide how many skill levels you should consider buying if you want to achieve a particular concept. If you start adding in all kinds of dice pool modifiers, you can't really say how much is due to the character's skill, their raw talent, or their spiffy equipment.

As Shinobi said, no, I'm not, I'm actually correcting the fact that the book does a very bad job of displaying skill. Okay, you have a 6 skill, you are 'among the best in the world.' but you also have a 2 attribute, so you only have a DP of 8. Compare that to someone with an attribute of 8 (Thanks to handy augmentations) and a skill of only 2, and gets a +2 from some equipement. That person is only a 'beginner' in the skill, and yet the high stat low skill person will trounce the supposed 'best in the world' every time. Thus the skill descriptions in the book give a very poor look at how good someone is at something.

Instead my table tries to show how good someone actually is at something. If they have a DP of X, then they are at Y level, regardless of how they got there. They are even with other people of Y level, regardless of how they got there, and both of them are below someone of Z level, regardless of how that person got there.

So lets look at making a character. I want to make a character who is a top marksman. Looking at the book I get a 6 in longarms, which makes me 'Among the best in the world.' I then go along and get my other stuff and forget to give myself a high agility (Or just don't think to). So, now my 'best in the world' skill character barely has 8 dice to throw when shooting. Meanwhile someone else creates a character that is supposed to be a bad shot, someone just learning to fire their weapon, so they get a skill of 1, specializing in hunting rifles to represent that being the only weapon they've fired, but they jack up agility and even get muscle toner. Now the character is 'a really bad shot' but throws 10 dice when firing. All the sudden, because you were only looking at skill, the worlds best is outperformed by the guy who's lucky he knows which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. (I know this is exaggerated, but I'm trying to show my point. You could just as easily not gimp the person and the novice is still equal to the world's best)

Using my scale however you decide that you want to be a really good shot, and look it up and see that 12 dice are needed to represent a good (Though not world class) ability. You now know that 12 dice is your goal, and you can decide if you want to achieve that because your character is 'naturally talented' (High Agi score), has been working at it forever (High skill) or has worked at it for a while (Decent in both). It also lets you know you can drop your agility by 1 and pick up a reflex recorder to represent someone trying to overcome their 'natural handycaps' or you could drop your skill by 1 and pick up reflex recorder to represent someone not wanting to bother with all that training.

I feel my scale allows for much more flexibility in how you create your character, and allows you to keep an eye on how good you'll be at the end of it all, instead of just having an 'I have high skill, I'm awesome at X' like the book suggests.

I totally agree with Sponge. And there's even a different cost in BP: skill 6 + att 1 (24bp) \ Skill (1) + Att 6 (65bp!!!) (that makes a HUGE difference)

If you think a skill level doesn't mean a thing when i cames to the actual result, maybe there's an easier way to fix this up:
> You may simple determine a limit for hit points based on the skill level (actually the opposite of Magic related actions...). Spending Edge could make that limit disappear.
> I would put a limit of (Skill +1 or +2) hits. For defaulting the limit would be only one hit.

Several things. Yes, 6 att + 1 skill is more expensive for getting a DP up to 7, but that makes the assumption that a 6 attribute is useless outside of one particular skill. Instead look at it as you can get 6 attribute and 6 skills that go to that attribute at 1 for a cost of 24 + 65 = 89 points, or you could get the attribute at 1 and six skills at 6 for (24*6)=144 BP.

All the sudden the stat looks way better than the skill

As for limiting hits by skill, it is fairly commonly suggested with Skill*2=max hits (And I'm personally in favor of that) but the fact is that it is rarely a limiting factor. You generally only get 1 hit in every 3 dice, so a skill of 2 is enough to make good use of a DP of 12, and a skill of 3 is enough to handle a DP of 18.

This also doesn't really help the high skill low stat person much, because he has no prayer of reaching 12 hits with a DP of 8. Only thing this really does is make it hard to play a savant type character with a really high stat and stat type boosters and such and 1 skill point in most everything. Even then... well, at least you're always guaranteed 2 hits. The 6 skill 8 DP person will generally do better, but can occasionally do worse.

[Glyph]

My problem with the skill descriptions was the examples. I think they would have done a better job if they had described the level of training involved. For example, for unarmed combat, they could have said:

1: has taken a self defense class
2: beginner level martial artist, or someone who has been in a few "real" fights.
3: intermediate level martial artist, first degree black belt from a "black belt factory", or a street fighter
4: a "real" black belt, seasoned street fighter, tough man competitor
5: "real" black belt who does regular sparring, pro fighters, back alley brawling champs, pit fighters
6: above level of skill with regular practice/sparring, championship contenders, tournament champs
7: fourth or higher degree black belt, pro champions, martial arts or pit fighting standouts

I also think that, much like Attributes, a skill at a given rating covers a range of ability, because the skill levels are so compressed.

What I don't like about the examples (special forces, etc.) is that the examples generally have that level of skill, and a certain level of the linked Attribute, and a certain amount of complementary skills. So you have players going "Well, my guy isn't like Matador or Hatchetman, so I guess he shouldn't take pistols at 6." When, in fact, a pistols skill of 6 might suit that character perfectly well.

Although I also think that skills and linked Attributes should usually be developed hand in hand. So I would actually consider someone with an Agility of 6 and pistols of 6 to be more skilled than someone with an Agility of 2 and pistols of 6. The first person has obviously spent time working on their speed and hand-eye coordination, rather than merely their technique.

[Udoshi]

I'd like to point out that with a dicepool cap of 20, you may still have a DP's of above twenty. It just cuts off at twenty.

For example, a world-class metahuman has a 24 in X - it means they're at the top of their game, even with wound penalties(-1) and distractions(-2) = 21, capped to 20.

It just means that people with perfect dice pools tend to be able to keep it up under pressure, too, which is more dangerous than rolling high only when you're at the top of your game.