Skill cap house rules, Which do you prefer Options

[Serbitar]

The skill+1 rule goes like:
You can only have skill+1 hits in skill critical tests (software programming, knowledge kills, electronics . . .)

The halved above skill rules goes like:
All your hits in skill critical tests above your skill are halved (round normally, thats up).

The RAW goes like this:
You can default software programming with logic and get more hits than a skills programmer. No restrictions.

Note:
These can also be used to better balance Logic+skill limited by program hacking rulesets (either by limiting to program+1 hits or halving hits above program)

Please discuss.

[Mistwalker]

You need another choice, of none of the above.

[BlueRondo]

Instead of making the fourth choice, "none of the above," how about making it, "I'll propose an alternate rule."

[ElFenrir]

Well, they're not quite for me. If i were to really limit hits, id at least allow Skillx2.

Reason being, is that under the new system, while you do run into some problems like the unskilled but wired guy can be as good as the master swordsman whose practiced his whole life but is 80 and has agl. 2. Ok, so that is quite a big problem for me and youre rules solve this. (I guess in that case, i opt for the second option. Hits are tough enough to land as it is, so i at least wanted to give an opinion in thread. :D)

However, this new system allows something the old SRs didnt do as well, and made low skills viable again. Back in the day, with skills like BR, Social and the like which didnt have pools(unless you had a jaked up Encephalon or Cerebral Booster for INT and that didnt give many at all), with a low skill you just couldnt do anything. Even a weekend mechanic should be able to get by with a BR 2 skill, and this system allows you to do that. To argue against what i said above, the hit limiting system has said merits like this again but then opens up the fact that low level skills once again become a bit useless.


That all being said, yeah, option 2 at least to give a better chance, if you had to pick one. (I do like what you do with quite many houserules, btw.)

PS: How would you handle specializations? Allow two more hits?

And critical test....by the sound of it your aiming for the more techy end of things with this rule. So running, pistols, throwing, intimidation, leadership, etc. are not affected?


PPS: I think, in SR, I have a bigger problem with the defaulters getting the huge hits over the trained folks, like was mentioned(i woke not that long ago and am in the process of caffinating, missed it. :grinbig: ) Perhaps rather than cap the skills, perhaps defaulting needs to be more severe?

[NightmareX]

At the moment I like "half the above", but I have to talk to my players about it. The more I delve into and understand the Matrix rules the more I see how grossly counter intuitive they are, which makes global fixes like this difficult without doing a near complete rewrite. Especially when the fact that hacking = rigging is taken into account. I'm wondering if it's worth the effort. :(

[Serbitar]

[Ryu]

None of the above, suggestion-on-top-style:

Max. Dicepool before mods = (base skill+2) *3


I can do without, personally.

[Serbitar]

[James McMurray]

If we used one it would probably be skill + 1.

[Eryk the Red]

I'm all for having no limits. I like the possibility of characters achieving spectacular successes once in a while, because of sheer luck. It's what allowed my group's troll to torture a great deal of information out of a man who had recently helped ambush the troll and put a cortex bomb in him, even though the troll only has one point of intimidation. The scene was very dramatic (if slightly gruesome and Punisher-ish), and he got a bit lucky. It worked out well. Success caps don't do it for me, because they tend to either not matter enough to be worhwhile (if the cap is high), or they are frustratingly intrusive, putting shackles on characters' success (if the cap is low).

I say, feh. If there's a reason success should be limited, I let it manifest as a threshold or dice penalty. I'm not bothered by characters with Skills in the 2s getting decent successes sometimes.

The only similar limit I use is a limit on the number of times an extended test may be rolled (skill x 2). But I'll probably stop doing that, start calling the extended test threshold a "target number" or something instead, and apply an ordinary threshold to each roll for the extended test based on circumstances. I just don't like hard caps on success.

[James McMurray]

I could definitely see it for some skills that are more learning based. Someone whose spend a sememester in junior college as their only exposure to electrical engineering shouldn't be able to design highly advanced things just because their logic is high.

[Eryk the Red]

I basically assume that if you have a rating of one or more in an active skill, you have more than passing knowledge about the skill in question, you have at least some actual understanding of how to apply that knowledge. I understand your intention, and I agree with it (even though it doesn't color how I play the game), but that semester in junior college would rarely manifest as an active skill. It'd probably be reflected as low level knowledge skill in "Electrical Engineering Background" or similar.

[James McMurray]

No book handy, but the rules explain what each skill level represents. Id' have to double check to see what it calls rating 1.

[ElFenrir]

[Butterblume]

I voted for none. Right now I don't need a skill cap. If someone forced me to introduce one, I would go with skill*2.

But, I am not saying that couldn't change in the future.

[DireRadiant]

[BlueRondo]

According to my book, Software is a non-defaultable skill, so defaulting on software programming shouldn't be a problem anyway.

[Eryk the Red]