Attributes, linked skills, and priority revisions, How would you change it? Options

[Talia Invierno]

Which skills should be linked to different attributes? I've previously proposed that Diving should be IN-linked. Siege suggests here that Intimidation could be linked to Strength. (We've played it as a two-way skill in our house rules: a player could choose which attribute to base off of at PC creation.)

On a loosely related note, a proposed major amendment to SR3 character creation rules (edit: initial de-bugging amendments four posts down):

Instead of having a fixed number of active skill points to assign and a number of knowledge and language skill points based off IN - why not tie the number of points available for different types of active skills directly to their linked attribute (in much the same manner as with knowledges and IN)? For example, a PC who assigns a 4 to QU would have (4 x the multiplier) points to place into QU-based skills at character creation.

Related changes to the priority system would change the Skill category to a multiplier category instead:

A = x 2 (maximum skill total 54 if Attributes = B, minimum 36)
B = x 1.5 (maximum skill total 45 if Attributes = A, minimum 27)
C = x 1 (maximum skill total 30, minimum 18)
D = x .75 (maximum skill total 23, minimum 14)
E = x .5 (maximum skill total 15, minimum 9)

A player still has the flexibility to have a higher or lower total skill point value, but how they would be distributed would be proportional to the attributes chosen. (Edge bonus attribute points would not be included in this calculation; edge bonus skill points could be used to improve any of the PC's skills at the usual costs.)

Finally, to make the D and E priorities in magic (and to a lesser extent - with the revisions in SR3 - race) meaningful, I propose restoring the old SR2 Magic edges and flaws for use with Magic (D) PCs only - edges to a maximum of their Essence. (If their Essence goes down, edges are lost accordingly.) If the player doesn't care about having access to magical edges and flaws and the PC is human, only then would the PC gain the higher karma pool ratio associated with humans (a "true" Priority E race pick would give no racial bonuses whatsoever).

Thoughts?

Edit: I do know how to multiply. Really. It just has a high Stealth skill occasionally. (For some reason, I was multiplying the higher end by the skill point total instead of the attribute point total. Sigh.)

[Siege]

Since I played a small role in spawning this thread in a relatively tounge-and-cheek commentary, I feel the need to weigh in just a tad.

I have always griped that there was no relationship between high stats and skill success: A person with Strength 2 and Athletics 6 has the same chance of vaulting a fence that a person with Strength 6 and Athletics 6 does.

In SR3, they tweaked this to linking karma cost increase to relative stat size. I don't particularly care for this improvement because it doesn't address the basic issue, except that the bigger character saves on karma for having raised his/her skill to a 6.

Preface done, I think Tal's idea of tweaking the number of points gained based on attribute size would skew most of the standard character creation systems at this point. I also dislike the basic concept of inherently linking the amount of skills garnered to the amount of attribute points -- to be fair, I'm not a big fan of the Int x 5 ruling, but since I don't have a better suggestion except to allow a number of knowledge points equal to the number of active skill points and eliminating the "Active -3 = knowledge" ruling.

My "fix" as such would be to allow the player to choose a different linked attribute for some skills that can be reasonably argued:

Melee skills could be either Quickness or Strength
Unarmed combat could be either Quickness or Strength
Athletics could either Quickness or Strength

Intimidation (Physical) should certainly be based on either Strength or Body since limiting by Charisma when you're flexing to intimidate someone just seems silly (IMHO).

Negotiation could be either Charisma or Intelligence, depending on how much intellectual arguing a character was doing, versus flirting. A saleswoman willing to smile, joke and flirt with a male customer will typically make a better sale (Charisma) while a salesman could argue the merits of this model over that (Intelligence) or do the charming, "I'm your best buddy" routine (Charisma).

-Siege

[FritzZero]

[Sigfried McWild]

THe fact that the chance of success is not influenced by you stats but only by skills is not a real machanicla failing, but more of a different approach at what the skill represents.
In DnD3ed (don't flame yet, can't find my dikoted underwear) getting a certain level in a skill costs the same no matter what you stats and the chance of success is deternined by the skill + stat(modifier). The skill level could be thought of as the amount of training you put in that skill, the total of skill and modifer is your "true" ability in that skill (it doesn't make a difference if I have a total of 10 only due to the modifier or becuase of the training).
In Shadowrun on the other hand the skill level is the "true" ability in that skill. Characters that are more gifted will require less training to achieve that level (less karma spent) while less neturally able characters will need much more training (karma) to reach the same level.

What's annoying about this kind of skill model is that increases in the stats are not reflected in the final level of the skill (though it could be argued that this might be somewhat more realistic or maybe not)

Well that was my 0.02 :nuyen: hope it was readable

[Talia Invierno]

Amendments to initial attribute-linked skill priority proposal (based on immediate GM feedback post real life "flame" ;)):

1. The total number of skill points rounds up. Skill totals linked to individual attributes can be rounded up or down so long as the total = total attributes x multiplier, rounded up.

2. Available WL-based skill points can be used to increase skills linked to any attribute. (Above the linked attribute costs double the points, per usual.)

3. RE-based skills draw upon points derived from either IN or QU. (Above the linked attribute costs double the points, per usual.)

4. Skill points are based upon base attributes, before racial adjustments or 'ware. (Edit: However, starting skills only cost double the points when raising above the amended attribute, to the usual starting maximum.)

It's been brought to my attention that this system usually would result in generally (slightly) weaker PCs, especially for specialists. This is deliberate: PCs designed to be slightly closer to actual starting rather than established characters - which might possibly extend their playability duration. (At the extremes PCs either have a slight edge or a significant loss over existing possibilities.) Every PC can easily end up with one or two 6's in skills linked to primary attributes, or multiple 3's, 4's, and 5's. This still gives comfortable specialisation possibilities, I think ...?

[Nightward]

Whilst I do like the idea of having your Skill ratings determined by your attributes (at least at first), I can think of some good reasons against it as well.

First up, whilst natural talent does factor into skills and abilities (at least IRL), training matters a lot, too. So, if, as in your example, Strength 2, Athletics 6-man and STR-6, ATH-6-boy went at it in a high-jump competition, since they are equally skilled at what they do, it's not only possible but entirely plausible that STR-2-man would win. Especially since in SR, you Jumping ability is based off Quickness :D

But a better example is in areas requiring training; you could, for example, teach a chimpanzee to do most jobs around the place, and it would have pretty poor stats.


Personally, I like the WoD system. Your dice pool for tests comes from your attribute and your ability rating, so it reflects both natural aptitude and training in the ability at hand.

[Raptor1033]

WoD? whazzat? 'splain please.

[Sigfried McWild]

WoD - World of Darkness.
It's the general setting for most of the White Wolf games (Vampire, Werewolf, Hunter) which all use the same basic system with some special tweaks to adapt it to the unique type of characters that are represented in the game.

[s3kt0r]

In my games, Computer and Electronics do not default to each other. One reason for this is that I combine Electronics with Electronics B/R. Aside from maglocks Electronics is a useless skill and I really don't see the difference between them. Breaking into the innards and manipulating the circuitry of a maglock isn't even remotely similar to opeating software on a computer. Although, I do allow Electronics to default to Computer B/R.

[D.o.d.d.]

Electronics is Electronic Warfare, which can become fairly important when dealing with Riggers.

Also it covers stuff like bypassing laser trips.
"Right, Ok, given the readings I've got off my unit, the lasers are ultra-violet 12 watts flashes with a green luminescent 13 watt on a mirror with a green spectrum filter. I'll need a set-up two with the the number 3 and 6 at 15 and 23 percent power, respectively..."

"You're making this up as you go, aren't you?"

Therefore, there is a purpose for two separate skills. Electronics is, if you would, not the guts of the machine, but rather the physics and application of it.

Although I can see the no defaulting with that one.

[Talia Invierno]

This was one I'd meant to explore a bit more in detail, as a major overhaul possibility. I'll address one point first:

[ialdabaoth]

[Cochise]

Two words:

Too complicated

[Talia Invierno]

It's precisely as complicated as the current Language and Knowledge derivation, and considerably less complicated than the current pool derivations.

[ialdabaoth]

I'll second that - I personally like the idea, although to be honest, I'd rather just use BeCKS.