I've noticed a number of people complaining that th Skill+Attribute mechanic diminishes the value of skills, or even makes them altogether useless. I'm curious to see what people have tried to make skills count. The obvious one to me would be to limit net hits to the skill rating (obviously an exemption needs to be made for defaulting) much like many spells limit the number of net hits to the force of the spell.

Hmmm, interesting idea. For defaulting the limit would probably just be 1. And for simplicity's sake, I'd say any use of edge would eliminate the cap completely.
I'm not really sure if I like that rule or not, but if you were going to implement such a rule, I think that'd probably be the way to do it.

One of the suggested limiters in the BBB is limiting hits to Skill x 2. This actually goes a long way towards fixing some of my issues, ike the fact that most trolls can SCUBA dive in a hurricane.

Oh? I forgot that. Skill x 2 works, too.

It's a pretty cool number. It means someone who's a "professional (skill 3)" can still get 6 hits. Anyone better than that can get so many hits it's not likely to be an issue. It's the guys who redline their stats as quickly as possible, but get a bunch of skills at 1, who are going to be feeling the limitations.

I haven't actually tried any of the limiting rules yet, I don't think our group has logged enough actual play time to have a good basis for tinkering with the RAW yet (then again I set that baseline pretty high). I picked up on the Net Hits limited by X (force, rating, skill) mechanic though and was curious if anyone had tried it on skills because of the attribute issue. Skill x 2 probably does work better than Skill especially for 4-5-6 skill ratings where caps of 4,5, or 6 net hits might be too low.

So how much of your "Skill" is knowledge and how much is natural ability (Attribute)? IMO, If you looking for a limit, Skill+Attribute would be a better approximation. You'd keep min/maxers in check better by not pushing the limiting factors one way or the other.

The base issue being worked on is the problem a lot of players have with a character with 1 skill and 5 in the linked attribute being on average able to match a character with 3 in both, discounting edge altogether.

Oh come on, Steve, use the extreme example. Someone with 10 in the attribute defaulting is still better than someone with above average attribute and veteran level skill. i.e. 10 - 1 > 4 + 4

My group hasn't seen a problem with it, despite having players that focus heavily on attributes and then get a smattering of skill to compliment them. If your group does have the problem, the skill x 2 sounds good, and has presumably been tested a little by the devs since it made it into the book.

You could also limit them by the (lowest of skill or attribute)X2.

What about defaulting? I assume the cap is then 1 success, unless Edge is used?

Since attributes apply to skills, the smarter move would be to max out the attribute and not the skill. Agility 5 applies to all the weapon skills instead of just 1 skill in particular. You can still specialize for the extra mix/max zing.

Maybe that's the though behind Skillx2 rule from RAW, but maybe the implication is Skill > Attribute at least far as max-success is concerned.

I have issues with the idea that an Agil 7 untrained (7-1) shooter can shoot as well as an average agility 'professional' shooter (3+3). With the cap in place, natural ability does contribute... you're throwing more dice, which means you're more likely to get successes. It just means that the guy with skill can achieve MORE, despite throwing the same number of dice. It's pretty elegant.

So, with putting the Skill x 2 limit, what do you do with Magic? I mean, the Force that can be cast is already capped, so does that mean your Spellcasting skill caps your total hits as well?

So, a character with a total Spellcasting skill of 4, Magic of 5, has two limits with his dice. Per RAW, the Force rating can be up to Magic x 2, and the Force then restricts the amount of successes. Choosing a Force 10, for this spellcaster, under the Skill x 2 cap, could do a Force 10, but would actually be restrictied to 8 (skill x 2) total hits because of his skill, right?

If that is the case, I was thinking about how this applies to the matrix. I have been using Serbitar's house rule of programs being used as a cap, while actually rolling Logic + Skill for the test (which I think aligns with the magic rules quite nicely). The thing is, that programs go up to only 6 and unlike magic, you don't get to just pick a force, it is set for a program (possibly restricted by your commlink's ratings).

In this way, any hacker with a skill above 3 (which would cap at more than 6 successes per this rule), would still get capped at 6 due to the "program cap" rule I am using. Maybe it makes sense to look at the program rating like a spells force and allow the hacker to cap at Program Rating x 2, instead of Serbitar's cap...

Just thinking here, as I like the idea of using success caps to make skill rating more realistic...

Note: I suggest a skill+1 limit (but only on certain tasks, mostlyconnected to logic. running hits for example should never be limited by running skill). the skillx2 limit is just to weak.
The skill+1 limit is perfectly in line with the force limit for reasonable force spells and programmes.
Also, it balances the avaiabilities perfectly.

Yeah, I would likely take the lower of the two caps...and your example makes sense and seems realistic.

As for hacker skills...basically, the Programs act as spells and the Program Rating is then used like a spell's force...so the same balance would be there as well.

The only difference is that a program has a set rating, so the hacker doesn't get to chose anything up to twice his Logic score (which would have been similar to magic). Seeing a Rating 6 program costs more than a Rating 3 program, unless one takes that fixed cost out of programs, then you are stuck at that rating, unlike spells.

It could be worthwhile to align programs like spells. So, a program doesn't have a set rating, the hacker chooses the rating he wants to use the program at, up to a maximum of Logic x 2, and then anything above his Logic score, would be more lethal...exactly the same as the magic system currently is...

Refering to skill*2 limit:
I am more concerned about the lower end of the scala, for example skill level 1. Im am pretty sure someone could construct absurd examples what a char with skill level 1 wouldn't be able to do.

Sorry...duplicate post...

With the 2xSkill Rating standard, how many hits can you get on a defaulted test (Skill 0)? It would seem that you couldn't achieve any hits (2x0=0) and that's just stupidly restrictive.

Likewise, what's the limit when no skill is involved? Could a wired guy with Reaction 6 (9) and Dodge 1 get more hits against ranged attacks where the Dodge isn't even factored in than against melee attacks where 2 its seems to be the limit?

Sorry, but the system seems to fall apart at the bottom, and if that fails then I don't give two shits about the top-end since the system is a failure.

How would you factor in specializations?

They don't count towards skill ranks but are instead a bonus reflecting increased attention and focu on that specialty?

Shouldn't they count towards increasing the limit then?

@ Happy Daze:

Thats why I make the distiction of "skill critical tests" and "skill uncritical tests". Most tests relying ont he humand body are "uncritical" as the are performed intuitively. Most test involving the brain are "critical" as knowledge is key.

AThey table telling you whether you can default a skill or not is a good guideline.

@ irdeggman:

Your desicion. There are good reasons for both versions. A consensus would be to heigthen the limit by 1 (not 2) for a specialisation.