Low Skill, High Attribute vs., High Skill, Low Attribute |
Low Skill, High Attribute vs., High Skill, Low Attribute |
Sep 27 2007, 05:41 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,382 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Shadowland Member No.: 8,297 |
I seem to remember this coming up before, so if you can point me in that direction, I would appreciate it. (Searching for "skill" and "attribute" doesn't do much.)
Anyway, how do you handle - or not - the inconsistency (to me at least) of having the mechanics of high skill, low attribute be the same as low skill, high attribute? eg: Unarmed 1 + Agility 5 = 6 = 2 hits on average. So does Unarmed 5 + Agility 1. I can buy into Unarmed 1 with Agility 5. That shows a person with raw talent and a little training. I just can't see someone with an Agility of 1 getting to an Unarmed skill of 5. At the same time, I don't see an issue with the skill being 1 (maybe 2) point(s) above the attribute rating. Please comment. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 05:52 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Project Terminus: Soul Hunters Group: Members Posts: 1,052 Joined: 6-November 03 From: Casselberry, Florida U.S.A. Member No.: 5,798 |
well 5 skill and 1 attribute could say he's a natural?
I prefer the higher attribute myself as skills are cheaper and attributes cover more than one skill. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 05:54 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,382 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Shadowland Member No.: 8,297 |
I thought about that; however, I can't buy it. You may be a natural at hitting a baseball, but if you don't have the strength to hit it past the pitcher, you are still out. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 05:58 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 |
Perhaps he is a technical player? If you hit the ball in the right spot with the bat you need surprisingly little strength to get a good hit.
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:01 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Sadly, the game actually rewards Attributes far more than it does Skills in many cases. Attributes not only affect a wide range of Skills (instantly making it a better choice), but they're also used for things like Damage Resistance Tests.
Anyway, if I were designing the system, I'd probably have built the mechanic around Attributes determining the random value of the outcome, and Skill handling a solid modifier to the test. To me, Attributes represent your raw luck and talent when performing an action whereas Skill covers your solid, educated knowledge and training. The latter shouldn't be any more random than the stats on a gun or a vehicle, while the former should be pretty damn chaotic. That's why I, personally, have an easier time seeing someone with Attribute 1 + Skill 5 vs. Attribute 5 + Skill 1. The former should be way more competent in that one, particular field than the latter should be. But if you're looking for a patchwork solution, my initial suggestion would be to start with a limit based on the Skill rating. For instance, if you have Agility 6 and Pistols 3, you would only be able to use 3 Agility dice in that particular skill test. I'd see how that would go in a few games and continue building a house rule from there. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:12 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,382 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Shadowland Member No.: 8,297 |
@ Doctor Funkenstein
I can see how Skill would limit Ability; however, would you do it the other way around? |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:15 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Long Answer: How do you mean? Say someone with Attribute 2 and Skill 6 tried to do something, and limiting his Skill dice to 2 as a result? I doubt it.
What I would do is make it more difficult and pricey to raise a Skill after character creation, though. Not quite to the same level as raising an Attribute would be (since they're still used across numerous Skills and have other important uses as well), but definitely not as easy as it is now. Game balance is always tricky in theory, at least for me. I'd have to tinker around and try it out some before I'd find something that made sense to me. Short answer: No. :D |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:16 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...one rule that 3rd edition had was the "linked attribute". At chargen (both priority and BP system) you could expend skill points on a 1 for 1 basis up to the linked attribute rating. To purchase a skill above that rating was at a rate of 2 for 1. Similarly for improving a skill with Karma the cost was 1.5 x new rating up to the linked attribute. Above that it cost 2 karma x new rating. Yeah it was a bit more math, but it helped balance skills and attributes a bit more.
Maybe increase the BP cost to 6 for buying skills above the linked attribute. ...just a thought. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:22 AM
Post
#9
|
|||
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,382 Joined: 22-February 06 From: Shadowland Member No.: 8,297 |
I remember that from 2nd actually. Didn't play much in 3rd. Not a bad idea. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 06:34 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I personally easily buy into the Attribute higher than skill rating thing. When I first started firing pistols- literally when I FIRST shot them, I got a much tighter grouping than average etc. I've never done martial arts or any kind of unarmed combat practice but I tend to be able to take on people who have been training for a couple years because of my size, quickness, and strength. I've never been trained to notice things, but I generally pick up all the small details most people miss. There are alot of things I do as well or better than alot of "professionals"(people who qualify for Rating 3) and definately better than Rating 2 people and I've never been instructed on how to do so. I'm assuming I've got high attributes. I dunno. Just saying it makes sense to me.
Personally, I think that there should be a much increased cost for raising a skill above an attribute. It is much harder to learn how to do something if you do not have a natural aptitude for that operation. Someone with CP(Agility of 1, I would assume) is going to have a MUCH harder time learning how to fire a pistol accurately. At some point the amount of knowledge they have just isn't going to matter. However, someone with wonderful hand eye coordination and no experience with pistols beyond point gun pull trigger to fire is still going to be able to ably track a target and get the bullet relatively close. Just my .02 :nuyen: . PS: I was not knocking people with cerebral palsy, as a matter of fact my girlfriend has a VERY mild case and it is something we've dealt with several times as I've tried to teach her to do things. (Video games, catching objects tossed to you, etc. NOT what you were thinking.) Chris EDIT: I didn't read KK's post till now, I think that is a good idea. Go 3rd edition. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:49 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
There's nothing saying both "solutions" can't work together. One is a philosophical metagaming issue (the difficulty in learning a skill above your natural aptitude) while the other is one revolving around practical application of a skill (where skill and training should be more important than aptitude).
The higher your attribute, the easier time you have learning a skill. But using that skill is worth more than relying on luck and talent alone. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 07:07 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
I don't really have a problem with the game's rather abstract rules, but if you have a problem with the high Attribute/low skill combo being equal to low Attribute/high skill, you could use the optional rule on pg. 69, limiting hits to skill rating x 2.
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 07:10 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,925 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 948 |
A low attribute but high skill can also be from someone experienced, like that old geezer down the block who was a black belt kung-fu champion thirty years ago.
Sure, a palsy strength of 1 or 2 but a skill of 7 (9) with martial arts specialization. He might not hit you hard but he knows what you INTEND to do with your fist or foot before you do and wipes the floor with you. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 09:10 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
If you want skills to matter a little more, and attributes to matter a little less, you could always just nix the skill cap and/or modify the prices of skill points. If attributes soft cap around a 6 (and more or less, they do), but skills don't soft cap at all -- well, there ya go.
A guy that's really dedicated towards getting good with a Pistol can train his butt off and stay ahead of the curve compared to the guy that's just relying on a natural aptitude for hand-eye coordination to carry the day. By allowing skills (over attributes) more "room to grow," you open them up as a possibility. If someone wants to play an over-the-hill guy with mediocre stats, but lots of practical experience (or whatever other sort of "attributes light, skill heavy" character you can think up) and still be a viable character, they could do so. As it is, skills are even more strictly controlled (at character creation, especially) than attributes, and there's quite a bit more ways for technology to boost attributes than skills, to boot. Loosening that up might go a long way towards making skills count more. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 10:41 AM
Post
#15
|
|||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,251 Joined: 11-September 04 From: GA Member No.: 6,651 |
Remember that defending in hand to hand uses skill+Reaction so a person with agility 5 and reaction 2 [making a number up for the sake of an example] would be a naturally offensive person who may or may not be worth a flip at defending themselves. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 11:13 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
I've seen people in real life that had no talent but practiced and practiced until they were good at something, so I think the RAW is valid. With the slacker generation, it's just rare to see this because people will more likely move on to something they're good at right away, rather than spend time struggling to learn some skills.
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:25 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Why waste time and effort to learn something you got no talent in when you can learn something equally important and you are naturally good at?
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 11:34 AM
Post
#18
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 |
I realize this isn't quite what you asked, but your statement is not true. If both examples have +2 dice for unarmed tests, the results are: Unarmed 1 + Agility 5 + 2 Bonus dice = Dice Pool of 6 (skill + bonus dice cannot exceed 1.5) Unarmed 5 + Agility 1 + 2 Bonus dice = Dice Pool of 8 (skill + bonus dice cannot exceed 7.5) Now, the Agility 1 character will be far more vulnerable to decrease attribute spells and other effects. As for the explanation, the high stat low skill character is a natural. His raw ability allows him to be effective at the task but the actually grasp of technique is not there. The low stat high skill character is highly trained but lacking the natural ability to realize his grasp of the techniques. He may excel in controlled environments, such as demonstrating katas, but in even moderately less controlled tasks, such as sparring or actual combat, the lack of underlining ability (agility for attacks, reaction for defense) is evident. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 11:38 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
True, especially if you can make money sooner on something you're naturally good at. I'm not pointing fingers, I've done this myself. But my point is that I've seen people with no talent practice at something until they were excellent at it, so I think the RAW is valid. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 12:28 PM
Post
#20
|
|
Running Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,128 Joined: 9-December 06 From: In Your Mind Member No.: 10,324 |
I´m a notorious High Att/Low Skill player, but I don´t see a problem with the low Agi/ High Unarmed Mr. Miyagi. In my table-game I use the house-rule that raising attributes costs new level * 5 instead of 3, that way it looks way more balanced to me.
I used to have a rather complicated houserule (that was even before SR4 was out, when I homebrewed my own version from the previews), that made both Att and Skill important in different ways, but it depended on the Attribute-Biostress rules from Man and Machine. I´ve droped it for now, but would most likely pick it up again (maybe a bit twaked), if I managed to do a regular table-game. Pools where regular Att+Skill. Hits where hard-caped by Att (no more hits then Att, unless Edge was used) and soft-caped by skills (1 Stress-Point for the Att, if more Hits then Skill where achived). That way, the routined Strength 2 + Running 5 (30 BP) girl would have a high probability to allways max. out her performence, without overexerting herself, but max. performance would be rather low. The talented but unskilled Strength 3 + Running 2 (28 BP) guy on the other hand would have a higher max. performance, but also a lower probability to acheive a steady result and higher risk of injury. Also, if both pushed themselfes to their limits (using their Edge Att of 3), the professional would most likely outrun the natural and the later would most likely get injured (keep in mind that 1 Stress-Point for St isn´t much, so it´s not like rolling a critical glitch). P.S.: Swap genders in the example as you like, I have no intention to start another discussion about that. P.P.S.: The RAW already dos reflect that an Intuition 1 guy has a much harder time to become dr. perceptron then the Int 5 talent, because it´s still quiet costly to increase Perception (or all the Int skills) to 5 compared to raising it (them all) to 1, even if the first example dosn´t have to pay Karma * 1.5 after the first rank. The Rule was good in SR3, because Att where of little to no other relevance for skills back than. In SR4 I wouldn´t punish the player that -for whatever roleplaying-reasons- prefers to raise Perception and shadowing from 1 to 2 instead of chosing to increase Int from 1 to 2, by making the Skill increase even more costly! |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 12:40 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||
Running Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,128 Joined: 9-December 06 From: In Your Mind Member No.: 10,324 |
Agreed. Some of the most prominent Legendary Martial-Artists of History rose to prominence despite (or maybe because) of a lack of natural aptitude (being rather short and coparatively weak). I´m not enough of a nerd to give actual examples, but I remember reading about at least 2 founders of prominent fighting-styles with that kind of drive (they developed exceptional skills to compensate for lacking aptitude). Picture a left-handed person which was trained from child-hood to write with the right hand (not widely done anymore, but used to be that way only one or two generations ago). Is is so unrealistic that this person could have a better hand-writing then some naturally right-handed people? They´d still use the left hand, to swap a fly, because they where not trained extensively to swap flys with their right hand, therefore relying on their natural aptitude, but they´d regularly use the right hand to wright, because they have grown to excell the natural aptitude of their left hand through their skill-training. |
||||
|
|||||
Sep 27 2007, 01:58 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
That's true, training is based on the instructor's skill and there are tons of examples in history and mythology about a crippled or weak master teaching a student great skills.
Boelcke, the Red Baron's mentor, had a bum arm and didn't have enough strength to maneuver his fighter plane effectively. However, he was highly skilled, had an incredible stack of kills, and taught the Red Baron everything he knew. |
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:22 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Project Terminus: Soul Hunters Group: Members Posts: 1,052 Joined: 6-November 03 From: Casselberry, Florida U.S.A. Member No.: 5,798 |
Simple fix tell your players none of their skills can be higher than their linked attribute.
|
|
|
Sep 27 2007, 06:31 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Or twice their linked attribute for a more moderate approach, or 1.5 times their linked attribute. Although I'm not sure that making attributes more powerful/important is the right way to go, here. |
||
|
|||
Sep 27 2007, 08:58 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,288 Joined: 4-September 06 From: The Scandinavian Federation Member No.: 9,300 |
Guys I agree that something's up with having skills and attributes count as much, I had the same gripe in (the old) WoD system, T2k etc.
Sure, it makes sense for some examples such as unarmed fighting (to some degree) and running (to a greater degree), but for many active skills it doesen't even make that much sense that stats matter at all. Build/repair you need a high logic? Yeah, cause mechanics are known to have excelent mental faculties. And all contortionists are experts at s sneaking about or picking locks... My point is, for many skills training and dedication is ALOT more important than physical or mental characteristics. I'd go for skill rating caps the dice you get from attributes, except it would probably break the game. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 05:45 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.