I've been thinking about the Specialization/Exotic Weapon thing. Some weapons, like the whip, come in more than one variety. It seems strange to have to take a seperate Skill to learn Bullwhip, Cat-o'-Nine-Tails, and Monofiliment Whip ... etc. The same kind of problem exists for Polearms, as was said above.
I think that there is really no reason why you could not Specialize in a single aspect of the Exotic Weapon Skill if there are more than one appropriate weapons that can fit in that specific Exotic Weapon category.
Full Version: SR4 Rules
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| It's not just that the Exotic Melee Weapon rules are messed up, it's that they are structurally unsalvageable. |
And how have you resolved this problem in your game?
How about Exotic Melee weapons are governed by the appropriate melee skill, but Require that you have the appropriate specialization to use?
Or better yet, break it down out of "exotic melee weapons" and into more melee groups like Blades, clubs, chains, polearms, and the like. Exotic ranged does teh same, with the critter version being "Elemental attack proficiency" or whatever.
I think it's funny how this had become a thread for discussing how to fix RAW rather than one defending it now.
Or better yet, break it down out of "exotic melee weapons" and into more melee groups like Blades, clubs, chains, polearms, and the like. Exotic ranged does teh same, with the critter version being "Elemental attack proficiency" or whatever.
I think it's funny how this had become a thread for discussing how to fix RAW rather than one defending it now.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
And how have you resolved this problem in your game? |
Heh. Well, it pretty much falls to "the gentleman's agreement". Here's how it works:
When you take "Exotic Melee Weapon", you can use any Exotic Melee Weapon - as described in the combat section, the critter section, and the equipment section, and contradicting the information presented in the Skills section.
The problem should be obvious: there are Exotic Melee Weapons that fill any possible niche of melee artistry. From getting unusually placed spurs to putting a chain handle on whatever weapon you were going to use anyway, virtually anything could be converted into something that uses Exotic Melee instead of some other combat skill. And that... is a genuine problem.
The solution is that everyone agrees not to be an ass gasket about it. Everyone gets to have extremely broad ranging Exotic Melee skills as long as they keep up with their other skills and don't rub it in my face by replacing all their blades with sword-chucks.
And that works. It works for a game. It doesn't work for the game because it requires a level of trust that it is unreasonable to expect between an inanimate object (the Shadowrun Book) and a fourteen year old boy.
Further, the "don't be a cock about it" clause, while incredibly effective, actually requires you to understand what being a cock in this case entails, which in turn requires an intimate knowledge of the rules. So... while this particular hand-wave has worked pretty well for me, I can't say that simply errataing the non-functional text in the skill section to say that would be a good idea.
However, if the Exotic Weapons skills were capped at your appropriate combat skill group, that would probably brute-force abuse out of the way. It might kill some character concepts though, which would be sad.
-Frank
I find that a surprisingly broad ruling. I'd be more comfortable just grouping similar Exotic Weapons into one Skill (Whips/Polearms/etc), then allowing Specialization as normal. With the odd few left that fit in no category, while I might not group them, I would probably allow eached to be Specialized in things like 'Attack' or 'Defence'.
Would you group all the Exotic Melee Weapon skills in an Exotic Melee Weapons skill group? 
| QUOTE (Triggerz) |
| Would you group all the Exotic Melee Weapon skills in an Exotic Melee Weapons skill group? |
Maybe ... depends how good the pizza is.
It has onions, bacon, pineapple, and three other toppings of your choice! 
| QUOTE |
| I find that a surprisingly broad ruling. |
:shrug:
This is a game where there is a skill called "Pilot Groundcraft" that allows you to drive:
- A Stickshift Sportscar
- An Ambulance
- A Tractor
- An 18 Wheeler
- A Hovercraft
- An ATV
- A Motorcycle
- Heal
- Wrecker
- Trid Phantasm
- Control Emotions
- Ignite
- Clairvoyance
The skills are really broad. Except Weapon Skills, which are incredibly narrow. That's probably not good for the game. If you chop up weapon skills any more than they already are, you're going to have to chop non-combat skills more as well. Pilot: 2 Wheeled has existed before, it can exist again.
But seriously, the pointy end goes in the other man, why is there an impetous among the weapon afficianados to split hairs when it comes to weapon skills? We're willing to abstract torture, interrogation, intimidation, and mental cruelty into one skill - why do we have to have separate skills for different weapon types which are all essentially "point and shoot"?
-Frank
To be fair, the Spellcasting example isn't exactly an even comparison, because of the added cost of Spells, but I do understand your point.
I admit that they way it is in canon leaves a lot to be desired. I don't mind the Exotic Weapon Skill Group suggestion, but I'd have to think on it quite a bit before lumping all the EWs into one single Skill.
I admit that they way it is in canon leaves a lot to be desired. I don't mind the Exotic Weapon Skill Group suggestion, but I'd have to think on it quite a bit before lumping all the EWs into one single Skill.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Nov 16 2006, 06:34 PM) |
| The skills are really broad. Except Weapon Skills, which are incredibly narrow. |
Yea, it seriously annoyed me when they decided to split Firearms and Armed Combat moving from 2nd edition to 3rd.
<a million house rules mode>
You know what I say: Cap broad skills at 4 and bring back the Specialization vs. Concentration distinction!
And you know what? Triggerz is right. Specializations are weird. Here's a fix: You can buy multiple specializations in one skill, but you can't have more than 4 total specializations.
</>
I've added anc changed the melee skills in my game. We have:
Unarmed
Axes/Clubs
Short Blades
Long Blades
Whips
Polearms
With the first 4 being included in Close Combat.
Unarmed
Axes/Clubs
Short Blades
Long Blades
Whips
Polearms
With the first 4 being included in Close Combat.
| QUOTE (Chandon) |
| <a million house rules mode> You know what I say: Cap broad skills at 4 and bring back the Specialization vs. Concentration distinction! |
I do miss the mechanic of concentrations and specializations, except that it became hard to be good at two different types of weapons....
The old Concentration/Specialization mechanic was removed because it led to people getting completely fucked if they ever wanted to improve the original skill or take on a new ability.
In short, it made nice starting characters, but it wasn't extensible. It performed extremely poorly on advancing characters - which is a shame.
Then the idea naturally came up to have characters be able to increase the phantom skill in the middle - raising the specialized and unspecialized skill together to preserve the symmetry of a starting character. And of course, that's the same as just being +2 in your specialization - which is easier to explain.
I fully support the SR4 specializations. They are an awesome deal, and we expect players to take them. This makes characters more different one from another. Frankly I think that we should probably have the old SR1 "Firearms" skill and just accept that every gun bunny is going to take a specialization.
-Frank
In short, it made nice starting characters, but it wasn't extensible. It performed extremely poorly on advancing characters - which is a shame.
Then the idea naturally came up to have characters be able to increase the phantom skill in the middle - raising the specialized and unspecialized skill together to preserve the symmetry of a starting character. And of course, that's the same as just being +2 in your specialization - which is easier to explain.
I fully support the SR4 specializations. They are an awesome deal, and we expect players to take them. This makes characters more different one from another. Frankly I think that we should probably have the old SR1 "Firearms" skill and just accept that every gun bunny is going to take a specialization.
-Frank
I was thinking of something sort of similar flavor wise but that sucked less than the actual Concentration rules. Something like this:
For ratings 1-4 you buy generic skills like "Firearms", "Close Combat", "Etiquette", "Pilot: Ground". When you advance a skill beyond 4 (I'd say up to a maximum of 8, but that's a different issue...), you're buying ranks in a specific skill like "Automatics", "Blades", "Etiquette (Corp)", "Pilot: Car". You can get multiple specific skills, but you buy them separately. Again, I think this goes well with allowing multiple specializations per skill and limiting the total number of specializations per character (saying that specializations represents an actively maintained skill and that you can't support an arbitrary number of them but fixing Triggerz's "Revolvers/Heavy Pistols" vs. "Revolvers/Katanas" issue).
This goes really well with a BP character advancement system, because it adds a little bit of diminishing returns without forcing character generation to use a triangular purchase system.
This would probably replace the skill groups system, but I personally don't see that as being a big loss - they have some really weird properties that aren't necessarily less annoying than the issue they were introduced to fix.
For ratings 1-4 you buy generic skills like "Firearms", "Close Combat", "Etiquette", "Pilot: Ground". When you advance a skill beyond 4 (I'd say up to a maximum of 8, but that's a different issue...), you're buying ranks in a specific skill like "Automatics", "Blades", "Etiquette (Corp)", "Pilot: Car". You can get multiple specific skills, but you buy them separately. Again, I think this goes well with allowing multiple specializations per skill and limiting the total number of specializations per character (saying that specializations represents an actively maintained skill and that you can't support an arbitrary number of them but fixing Triggerz's "Revolvers/Heavy Pistols" vs. "Revolvers/Katanas" issue).
This goes really well with a BP character advancement system, because it adds a little bit of diminishing returns without forcing character generation to use a triangular purchase system.
This would probably replace the skill groups system, but I personally don't see that as being a big loss - they have some really weird properties that aren't necessarily less annoying than the issue they were introduced to fix.
Ok, it might not be the most elegant solution, but I'll suggest something that can potentially fix a couple of weird things:
Example 1: You have Agility 4 and Clubs at 5, so you're pretty good with a staff, but when you pick up a combat axe ("Blades" skill) or a halberd (Exotic Melee Weapon skill) - which are basically staves with funky heads (not quite, I know, but still...) -, then you only have 3 dice.
Example 2: Agility 5, Close Combat 6, but you only roll 4 dice if you try to use any kind of whip or chain weapon (Exotic Melee Weapon skill).
My proposal involves two things:
1-) If you have a skill - or maybe limit this to relevant skill groups? - that the GM feels is close enough, you can default using (Attribute-1)+(Skill-1) instead of just (Attribute-1). In other words, (Attribute+Skill-2).
2-) Skill points above 4 do not help when defaulting.
In Example 1 above, the guy with the halberd would get (4-1)+(4-1)= 6 dice instead of 3. In the second example, the guy would get (5-1)+(4-1)=7 dice instead of 4. (If you're a pro at close combat, then you shouldn't be totally clueless, I think, if you ever need to use a whip in a fight.)
This could be applied elsewhere, I guess, but it should never act as an appropriate replacement for a skill. The GM should always err or the "hard ass" side of things when in doubt.
Also, for exotic melee weapons, I would allow players to buy the relevant skill - maybe "Whips and Chains" or "Pole Weapons" - at a discount: they would automatically get the skill at (Close Combat-2), granting them one die more than in the above defaulting rules if they increase this free skill from 2 to 3 (assuming, for example, Close Combat at 4). The same thing could be done, I think, for exotic ranged weapons.
I like the idea of allowing multiple specializations per skill. They might need to be made more expensive though. (It just wasn't an issue when you were limited to only one.)
Example 1: You have Agility 4 and Clubs at 5, so you're pretty good with a staff, but when you pick up a combat axe ("Blades" skill) or a halberd (Exotic Melee Weapon skill) - which are basically staves with funky heads (not quite, I know, but still...) -, then you only have 3 dice.
Example 2: Agility 5, Close Combat 6, but you only roll 4 dice if you try to use any kind of whip or chain weapon (Exotic Melee Weapon skill).
My proposal involves two things:
1-) If you have a skill - or maybe limit this to relevant skill groups? - that the GM feels is close enough, you can default using (Attribute-1)+(Skill-1) instead of just (Attribute-1). In other words, (Attribute+Skill-2).
2-) Skill points above 4 do not help when defaulting.
In Example 1 above, the guy with the halberd would get (4-1)+(4-1)= 6 dice instead of 3. In the second example, the guy would get (5-1)+(4-1)=7 dice instead of 4. (If you're a pro at close combat, then you shouldn't be totally clueless, I think, if you ever need to use a whip in a fight.)
This could be applied elsewhere, I guess, but it should never act as an appropriate replacement for a skill. The GM should always err or the "hard ass" side of things when in doubt.
Also, for exotic melee weapons, I would allow players to buy the relevant skill - maybe "Whips and Chains" or "Pole Weapons" - at a discount: they would automatically get the skill at (Close Combat-2), granting them one die more than in the above defaulting rules if they increase this free skill from 2 to 3 (assuming, for example, Close Combat at 4). The same thing could be done, I think, for exotic ranged weapons.
I like the idea of allowing multiple specializations per skill. They might need to be made more expensive though. (It just wasn't an issue when you were limited to only one.)
Here's another weird property of the current skill system that annoys me (and that my last suggestion would cooincidentally fix): Consider the character with Automatics 6 but no ranks in Pistols. He's really amazing at using a machine pistol but has no idea how to shoot a light pistol. That's a little weird to begin with, but here's my question: Why does training enough to have skill = 4 in light pistols take exactly as much effort as training in, say, Electronic Warfare? I mean, shouldn't it be a bit easier to learn a skill that you basically already have?
Boy, what we really need is some kind of a chart, one that shows how certain skills are related to other skills, providing a visual basis for determining some sort of bonus on checks when defaulting....
Frank, I agree that from a rating standpoint, a specialization adding +2 dice is the same as splitting the skill way the old way, and a lot easier to explain. However, it doesn't cost nearly the same. 2 BP for 2 dice is too cheap. If it were really equivalent, that specialization would cost 10 BP, the same cost as raising the skill once but splitting the difference.
Also, since it would have been the split rating that applied to the skill cap, a specialization would have capped out at skill rating 5, 7 in specialization. This was something I always liked about specializations. If you took one, you could never get the generic skill as high as someone who didn't, even though you beat them in your area of specialization. As the rules are, you can be just as good as the generic guy on all firearms. That's not broken, per se, i just prefer the other route because it provides some incentive to be a generalist. I don't like it when there is a certain choice that is so god you are expected to take it. You may as well charge 2 points more to buy the skill and force people to choose a specialty.
Frank, I agree that from a rating standpoint, a specialization adding +2 dice is the same as splitting the skill way the old way, and a lot easier to explain. However, it doesn't cost nearly the same. 2 BP for 2 dice is too cheap. If it were really equivalent, that specialization would cost 10 BP, the same cost as raising the skill once but splitting the difference.
Also, since it would have been the split rating that applied to the skill cap, a specialization would have capped out at skill rating 5, 7 in specialization. This was something I always liked about specializations. If you took one, you could never get the generic skill as high as someone who didn't, even though you beat them in your area of specialization. As the rules are, you can be just as good as the generic guy on all firearms. That's not broken, per se, i just prefer the other route because it provides some incentive to be a generalist. I don't like it when there is a certain choice that is so god you are expected to take it. You may as well charge 2 points more to buy the skill and force people to choose a specialty.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| Boy, what we really need is some kind of a chart, one that shows how certain skills are related to other skills, providing a visual basis for determining some sort of bonus on checks when defaulting.... |
hmmm... you mean, almost like a spiderweb even? you could go so far as to describe it as a web of skills... a skillweb, you might say
(or at least, i assume that's what you're getting at
)would be interesting to allow defaulting to skills, certainly. as far as the actual exotic melee weapon skills though (and ranged weapon as well), i definitely favor the idea of adding new 'group' skills, like polearms and whips. (beam weapons could be one example for ranged... currently, would only apply to the pain inducer, but whenever more come out... )
I like the idea of reducing the number of melee skills down to what is similar to it. I think that everyone could generate a different list on it depending on how they see weapons use. You could even have it divided by how they are wielded:
Long Two Handed Martial Arts Weapons - polearms, staves.
Short Dual Wield Martial Arts Weapons - Sai, tonfa, butterfly knives, etc.
Swords/ Clubs
Sword and Shield
Etc.
You could even have a Brawl skill which included improvised weapons like beer bottles and chairs as well as basic punching but no countering available.
Long Two Handed Martial Arts Weapons - polearms, staves.
Short Dual Wield Martial Arts Weapons - Sai, tonfa, butterfly knives, etc.
Swords/ Clubs
Sword and Shield
Etc.
You could even have a Brawl skill which included improvised weapons like beer bottles and chairs as well as basic punching but no countering available.
| QUOTE |
| rank, I agree that from a rating standpoint, a specialization adding +2 dice is the same as splitting the skill way the old way, and a lot easier to explain. However, it doesn't cost nearly the same. 2 BP for 2 dice is too cheap. If it were really equivalent, that specialization would cost 10 BP, the same cost as raising the skill once but splitting the difference. |
Hmm...idea(ive been reading this thread and others but havnt posted here in few months
) is decent...but problem is, most folks, from the minmax standpoint, would just take two more points in the skill for 8 BP. In what ive seen, the typical specialization method was to take a lot of skills at 2 and get specializations all for 10 BP. each, giving four dice for 10 BP, rather than 4 dice for 16 BP. But making the spec 10 might just bring folks to jack the skills up, not making it really cost worthy til they max the skill. and cant get more dice due to the cap. Now, perhaps a scaling specialization cost method? Make the lower the skill, the more it costs...forcing folks to pump the skill if they want a cheap specialization. That lets em get their extra dice, but they'll have to learn the skill decently first to get the 2 BP specialization(perhaps around level 5?) It might make it seem more worth the while than a flat 10. Paying 14 BP for a level 1 skill and a 10 BP specialization sounds bad, but when it goes down to 8 at 2, 6 at 3, 4 at 4 and 2 at 5, it sounds like more of a deal to buy the 18 point 3[+2] specialization. It might just look better to me in theory than practice. If you want to lower it a bit more, you could use 8,6,4, and get the 2 BP specialization by level 4.
Myself, i don't mind the cheap specializations really. The BP you get at the start has to be stretched between attributes, AND skills, AND resources, AND contacts which are bought point for point, AND Edge, which is an attribute, but still special in a way, and of course Mages and Technos have to buy their spells and abilities...ive found SR4 makes good starting characters, but even less powerful in general compared to their out of the box 3e counterparts, who could be frightening. When i see people trying to figure out what attribute to knock down so they can scratch out a few more skill points, The 2 BP specialization with all of this doesnt seem all that overpowering.
There are simply more detailed skills in areas where the game focuses on. The calculation ist not (field of skill)/(used skills per field) = constant, but (number of skill rolls per gaming session)/(used skills per roll) = constant.
If the game was about driving vehicles, there would be much more vehicles skills all costing the same amount of karma and as a sum much mroe than the vehicle skills we have at the moment.
Karma is and will be mostly a game balancing thing, nothing else (and certainly not proportional to something like training time).
If the game was about driving vehicles, there would be much more vehicles skills all costing the same amount of karma and as a sum much mroe than the vehicle skills we have at the moment.
Karma is and will be mostly a game balancing thing, nothing else (and certainly not proportional to something like training time).
In the SR4 game i was playing in, ive only accumulated about 12 karma so far, so i havn't really seen the huge thing with it. Ive Gmed a one-weekend fast pace game, that ended up being a lot of non-rolling situations, and since its a oneshot, karma didnt come into play.
So i havent gotten to see the long-term effects of this karma cost thing being imbalanced to chargen costs.
I do know one thing tho, I definately will, in any campaign i GM with SR4, be doing some heavy houseruling with the panacea-like Agility stat. Gunney and Launch Weapons? Back to Logic. Explain how it takes a high Agility to calculate the mathmatical stuff needed to launch a mortar to get it to hit its intended target and not 500 feet to the right destroying a Stuffer Shack. How is Agility factored into firing a tank gun. Melee? Going back to Strength. If for any reason just to balance out the number of STR based and AGL based stats. (I'd keep Whips as Agility however, it does make sense to me.) Im guessing the STR change might have been made due to the Trolls, Orks and Dwarves getting some big bonuses their melee ability off the bat. But i dunno.
Well, ill try it anyway, but i have a feeling someone already has and something went wrong with this. The only thing i can see is forcing to spend limited Attribute BP more thinly. I mean, this still allows for dumpstats but when all you need to do is pump AGL to get a huge bonus to half the skills on the list, a problem arises.
At the top of the page i noticed the ol Concentration and Specialization brought up...I also liked that idea, but there were a few problems...one was mentioned(rasing the stuff later), and two, some of the Concentrations were a bit...well, for example, Conjuring concentrations were 'Nature Spirits' and 'Elementals'. What Hermetic wouldn't take Elementals as a concentration?
That being said, anyone catch the SR4 skill 'Pilot Ground Craft?' In the BBB they mentioned a specialization as 'Wheeled'. So, basically, unless you plan on driving a tank...
So i havent gotten to see the long-term effects of this karma cost thing being imbalanced to chargen costs.
I do know one thing tho, I definately will, in any campaign i GM with SR4, be doing some heavy houseruling with the panacea-like Agility stat. Gunney and Launch Weapons? Back to Logic. Explain how it takes a high Agility to calculate the mathmatical stuff needed to launch a mortar to get it to hit its intended target and not 500 feet to the right destroying a Stuffer Shack. How is Agility factored into firing a tank gun. Melee? Going back to Strength. If for any reason just to balance out the number of STR based and AGL based stats. (I'd keep Whips as Agility however, it does make sense to me.) Im guessing the STR change might have been made due to the Trolls, Orks and Dwarves getting some big bonuses their melee ability off the bat. But i dunno.
Well, ill try it anyway, but i have a feeling someone already has and something went wrong with this. The only thing i can see is forcing to spend limited Attribute BP more thinly. I mean, this still allows for dumpstats but when all you need to do is pump AGL to get a huge bonus to half the skills on the list, a problem arises.
At the top of the page i noticed the ol Concentration and Specialization brought up...I also liked that idea, but there were a few problems...one was mentioned(rasing the stuff later), and two, some of the Concentrations were a bit...well, for example, Conjuring concentrations were 'Nature Spirits' and 'Elementals'. What Hermetic wouldn't take Elementals as a concentration?
That being said, anyone catch the SR4 skill 'Pilot Ground Craft?' In the BBB they mentioned a specialization as 'Wheeled'. So, basically, unless you plan on driving a tank...
| QUOTE (ElFenrir) |
| That being said, anyone catch the SR4 skill 'Pilot Ground Craft?' In the BBB they mentioned a specialization as 'Wheeled'. So, basically, unless you plan on driving a tank... |
hovercraft are also groundcraft in SR4.
also, in addition to treads, as you noted, it would also not apply to stuff that moves on skis (which is admittedly uncommon, though).
my personal favorite skill for specialisations is gunnery though
(specifically, i like ballistic specialisation)
I would think that trolls will be simply too nasty in melee combat if you link it to strength. The problem is not that it hurts when the Strength 15 troll hits you. The problem is when the Strength 15 troll hits you every time and you basically cannot ever dodge. I haven't tried it though, so maybe it works better than I think.
For mortars, Logic seems appropriate. It might not be as good a fit with other launch weapons, but then, you could always link the skill to different attributes based on the weapon.
For mortars, Logic seems appropriate. It might not be as good a fit with other launch weapons, but then, you could always link the skill to different attributes based on the weapon.
| QUOTE (Triggerz) |
| I would think that trolls will be simply too nasty in melee combat if you link it to strength. The problem is not that it hurts when the Strength 15 troll hits you. The problem is when the Strength 15 troll hits you every time and you basically cannot ever dodge. I haven't tried it though, so maybe it works better than I think. For mortars, Logic seems appropriate. It might not be as good a fit with other launch weapons, but then, you could always link the skill to different attributes based on the weapon. |
oh, forgot to mention... there is no launch weapons skill in SR4. i suppose you could put machineguns into automatics, assault cannons into longarms, and keep a separate "launch weapons" skill.
if i were going to change things further, i would probably also make single shots from SMGs, ARs, and machine pistols use the pistol/longarms skill as appropriate, and burst fire from pistols (AVS) or automatic shotguns (mossberg) use automatics skill. sakura fubuki i'm not sure if i would change it's skill for burst... it's not so much of a burst as it is a volley, as i understand it.
Yeah, I think the Launch Weapons fall under either Heavy(hand held) or Gunnery(mounted), if i remember correctly. I suppose for a carried grenade launcher could be AGL.Missiles i like the idea of Logic for. Mortars, definately logic. All gunnery, however, i think im going to rule as Logic for my games, anyway. If it doesn't work, things can always be adjusted again. But Gunnery worked just find in SR3 under Intelligence, IMO. Carried rockets are considered launch, im not sure my standing on them.
As for the high STR thing...well, IMO the firearms tend to dominate the setting a bit. They are already linked to AGL. It indeed fits they are linked to AGL, no problems there. But with EVERYTHING linked to AGL, nothing stops the modified 12 Agility Elf with ware from using every blessed combat skill, and then some, with their huge stat...and not to mention, being able to default to every blessed combat skill, and then some, with a number of dice which actually tends to be more than some characters.
The STR default didnt really seem broken in SR3, but again, Ill try it in SR4. If it doesnt work, call it a learning experience.
I guess im just wary of having SO MANY skills tied to one stat.
And for the Pilot Ground Craft(Wheeled), hehe...yeah, its got some issues...tanks, hovercraft and snowmobiles are ground craft, but well....how many cars, trucks, and motorcycles are out there? Reminds me of the old Deckers taking Comptuer(Decking) 5(7).
As for the high STR thing...well, IMO the firearms tend to dominate the setting a bit. They are already linked to AGL. It indeed fits they are linked to AGL, no problems there. But with EVERYTHING linked to AGL, nothing stops the modified 12 Agility Elf with ware from using every blessed combat skill, and then some, with their huge stat...and not to mention, being able to default to every blessed combat skill, and then some, with a number of dice which actually tends to be more than some characters.
The STR default didnt really seem broken in SR3, but again, Ill try it in SR4. If it doesnt work, call it a learning experience.
I guess im just wary of having SO MANY skills tied to one stat.And for the Pilot Ground Craft(Wheeled), hehe...yeah, its got some issues...tanks, hovercraft and snowmobiles are ground craft, but well....how many cars, trucks, and motorcycles are out there?
Reminds me of the old Deckers taking Comptuer(Decking) 5(7).
Yeah, the Exceptional Agility positive quality positively kicks ass for elves. Let me know how your experiment goes.
@jaid: Good catch! I guess it shows I'm still not really up to speed with the new ruleset. 
@jaid: Good catch!
I guess it shows I'm still not really up to speed with the new ruleset.
| QUOTE (Triggerz @ Nov 17 2006, 11:31 AM) |
| I would think that trolls will be simply too nasty in melee combat if you link it to strength. The problem is not that it hurts when the Strength 15 troll hits you. The problem is when the Strength 15 troll hits you every time and you basically cannot ever dodge. I haven't tried it though, so maybe it works better than I think. For mortars, Logic seems appropriate. It might not be as good a fit with other launch weapons, but then, you could always link the skill to different attributes based on the weapon. |
Yup, at least ime.
Especially given that agility is a -1 attribute for Trolls. You can get that strength waaaaay up there, but all the vectors that *deliver* the strength are based on agility, which is probably capped at 4 for most trolls. Even the twinker with 5 agi, and muscle toner 2 is still capping at 7.
I think orks are better in general for this role. Trolls are, if you'll forgive the comparison, burst damage. There's nothing like a troll for caving in a wall in one hit.
But for consistent DPS, the ork, even with two less str, is probably your better bet.
It's the fact that all the strength in the world doesn't matter if the hit doesn't connect. To me, that 1-2 points extra in the delivery will overtake the 3 points higher in the damage, much like a super warhawk with ex-ex ammo in the hands of a fair gunner isn't as useful as a predator with ex in the hands of a marksman.
| QUOTE (PP) |
| Frank, I agree that from a rating standpoint, a specialization adding +2 dice is the same as splitting the skill way the old way, and a lot easier to explain. However, it doesn't cost nearly the same. 2 BP for 2 dice is too cheap. If it were really equivalent, that specialization would cost 10 BP, the same cost as raising the skill once but splitting the difference. |
Sure, but then less people would do it, and the game would suffer (and it's 4 BP, but I got your meaning). We want specializations to happen. They make one character different from another in a manner which they rarely would be if specializations wer expensive and the caps achievable. By giving a discount on Specializations, we make people genuinely want to diversify their characters, it's good for the table.
| QUOTE |
| You may as well charge 2 points more to buy the skill and force people to choose a specialty. |
Well, not every skill is a weapon skill, where you arbitrarily choose what you're going to use when you pack your suitcase. A lot of skills, such as First Aid and Infiltration are pretty much reactive - you use whatever specialization you happen to run into. And in that context, Specializations are kind of dubious even at the cheap price that they have.
| QUOTE (Serbitar) |
| There are simply more detailed skills in areas where the game focuses on. The calculation ist not (field of skill)/(used skills per field) = constant, but (number of skill rolls per gaming session)/(used skills per roll) = constant. |
That's the concept I'll grant you. But I think it ultimately fails to deliver. A weapon skill is inherently a suitcase skill. Whatever you happen to have brought with you is the weapon skill that you can use, and therefore the weapon skill you will use.
It's not just that this isn't D&D and we actually do go entire sessions where noone gets stabbed in the face, it's that splitting weapons up doesn't actually make people more useless really ever. An automatic, a shotgun, and a pistol all really have an extremely similar utility: they kill people when you point them at the enemy and pull the trigger.
When you have an assault rifle you don't really miss the hunting rifle or the heavy pistol. You can get by with just one weapon and it doesn't hurt you game mechanically. People almost never fight with found weaponry in the middle of a dungeon - that's not usually part of the Shadowrun experience.
In short, splitting weapon skills has precisely the same effect as making specializations cheap: it incentivizes people to be "The guy who shoots people with a rifle" or whatever. That's fine for character diversity, it's a laudable goal even. But specializations already do that better, and there's no reason to have the extra layer of microcutting the weapon skills.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| In short, splitting weapon skills has precisely the same effect as making specializations cheap: it incentivizes people to be "The guy who shoots people with a rifle" or whatever. That's fine for character diversity, it's a laudable goal even. But specializations already do that better, and there's no reason to have the extra layer of microcutting the weapon skills. |
While seriously punishing people who want to be able to feel like a skilled shadowrunner who knows how to use multiple common weapons, and producing some really weird situations. (I'm never going to get over the Light Pistol vs. Machine Pistol thing - they're the same weapon, but you can be a ninja with one and have no clue with the other)
Yeah, 4BP. A.D.D. strikes again.
Even in a non-weapon skill, a specialization is currently a no-brainer for two reasons: It costs less than a new level in the skill, and it in no way limits your ability to use other aspects of the skill. You can still bring a skill up to rating 6 with the specialty. In previous editions of the game, a specialty would have limited you to an effective skill rating of 5. If having a specialty made it impossible to have a skill at it's max rank, then I wouldn't argue about the relative BP cost of the dice. Their'd be a trade off. As it stands there is no downside to specializing, not even the cost.
As I said, I don't want any "no-brainer" choices in my games.
Even in a non-weapon skill, a specialization is currently a no-brainer for two reasons: It costs less than a new level in the skill, and it in no way limits your ability to use other aspects of the skill. You can still bring a skill up to rating 6 with the specialty. In previous editions of the game, a specialty would have limited you to an effective skill rating of 5. If having a specialty made it impossible to have a skill at it's max rank, then I wouldn't argue about the relative BP cost of the dice. Their'd be a trade off. As it stands there is no downside to specializing, not even the cost.
As I said, I don't want any "no-brainer" choices in my games.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp @ Nov 18 2006, 12:08 PM) |
| In previous editions of the game, a specialty would have limited you to an effective skill rating of 5. |
You keep saying that, but I'm just not seeing where you are getting this idea from.
In previous editions, Specialization only limited your 'main skill' to 5 at chargen (or 4 in SR1, with Concentration at 6 and the Spec at 8 ). After that, you were free to raise the skill with Karma if you chose to do so.
OK, so there were no caps in previous editions. But, assuming there was a skill cap at 6, the specialist would have been limited to 5.
But what I mean is that a person with a specialty in a previous edition was always 1 step ahead of the generalists in their area, but one step behind everywhere else (assuming both spent the same points on the skill). So long as both received Karma and upgraded at the same rate, it would remain that way. Wherever skills topped out, they would do so with the specialist a step behind.
But under the new system, the specialists are as good as the generalists are, and 2 steps better in their area. For less than it costs to raise the skill a level. When the limit is reached, they will both be just as good at everything, except the specialist will be much better.
But what I mean is that a person with a specialty in a previous edition was always 1 step ahead of the generalists in their area, but one step behind everywhere else (assuming both spent the same points on the skill). So long as both received Karma and upgraded at the same rate, it would remain that way. Wherever skills topped out, they would do so with the specialist a step behind.
But under the new system, the specialists are as good as the generalists are, and 2 steps better in their area. For less than it costs to raise the skill a level. When the limit is reached, they will both be just as good at everything, except the specialist will be much better.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp @ Nov 18 2006, 01:03 PM) |
| Wherever skills topped out, they would do so with the specialist a step behind. |
No ... when they cap out, the Specialist is ahead. The existance of a Specialization in no way means that the main Skill cannot be raised to the cap post-chargen (with the Specialization exceeding the cap). This is the way it is in SR4, and the way it has been in every other edition of Shadowrun. The only difference this time around is that Specialization actually costs BP at chargen (previously it was just a choice), and does not negatively impact the main Skill.
But the main skill was a virtual skill, because it got -1 in all rolls not related to the specialty. The actual skill was 1 lower, unless it was in the specialty, then it was 1 higher.
Right, but there was nothing preventing the Specialized character from eventually raising his main skill (even if virtual) to the same level as the generalist. It just took a tiny bit more Karma, and then he's as good in the general skill, and better in his area ... just as if the generalist would be if he spent that little extra Karma and picked up a Specialization.
Technically, in terms of Karma costs, the generalist comes out a couple of points ahead in the long run (if the goal is eventually to be equal), and the specialist pays a small premium for an upfront boost to one area of his Skills.
Technically, in terms of Karma costs, the generalist comes out a couple of points ahead in the long run (if the goal is eventually to be equal), and the specialist pays a small premium for an upfront boost to one area of his Skills.
That's not how it always was. in older editions, the the generalist would remain ahead, because the same Karma it cost the specialist to catch up would raise the generalist a rank as well.
And you seriously suggest the the way to fix the generalist is for him to pick up a specialization? That's not a fix, thats the problem.
When advancing a skill costs new rating x2 in Karma, that 2 Karma saved is no incentive at all. If you are using BP, that 2 BP is only worth half a skill point. The generalist doesn't come out ahead anywhere.
we're both mixing our systems up a little, though. For comparison, I imagined that skill caps applied to SR3 skills to show how the old specializations would work if re-implemented in SR4. If I read you right, you did the opposite to prove your point. So mixing systems aside, in the previous edition, there was incentive to remain a generalist in a skill. In the current one, there is none.
And you seriously suggest the the way to fix the generalist is for him to pick up a specialization? That's not a fix, thats the problem.
When advancing a skill costs new rating x2 in Karma, that 2 Karma saved is no incentive at all. If you are using BP, that 2 BP is only worth half a skill point. The generalist doesn't come out ahead anywhere.
we're both mixing our systems up a little, though. For comparison, I imagined that skill caps applied to SR3 skills to show how the old specializations would work if re-implemented in SR4. If I read you right, you did the opposite to prove your point. So mixing systems aside, in the previous edition, there was incentive to remain a generalist in a skill. In the current one, there is none.
| QUOTE (PlatonicPimp) |
| And you seriously suggest the the way to fix the generalist is for him to pick up a specialization? That's not a fix, thats the problem. |
I didn't know there was a problem with the generalist. I don't see it as a terrible drawback, but if you want a reason for people not to Specialize, then I refer you to the rules about not being able to Specialize any skill while it is included in a Group. So if you purchase a Group of Skills at chargen, you could not Specialize in any one of those Skills until after chargen.
I think you are reading too much into what I am writing, and I am way too tired to keep trying to explain myself.
Remember another little thing the old system had(SR3, I havnt played 2 since i was about 18, so i really dont remember this little aspect) the ability to take more than one specialization.
So, a character could start with say, Pistols 6.
After getting some karma up(lets say for arguments sake he is Quickness 8 with some mods), he can get Ares Predator 7 for a mere 3 karma. So he has Pistols 6, Ares Predator 7.
Later he starts using a Ruger Super Warhawk. For 3 karma, he can get Pistols 6, Ruger Super Warhawk 7.
This can go on up to the amount of the original skill if i remember correctly. And a general skill had to be at least one lower than specialization(so in some cases, specialists would have to end up raising the general skill to raise their specializations). Someone with 1 pistols couldnt go over a 3 in Ares Predator until they raised Pistols to 2.
I do think SR3 leaned a LITTLE more toward generalist at chargen in that respect. For skills with not that many specializations(Stealth had Hiding, Sneaking, Tailing, and Palming i think), you could get uber in them for VERY little karma if you came out of the box with a big skill. (One thing i liked about Becks chargen, it sort of whittled down the huge amounts of 6's at the start.)
In SR1 and 2, Generalists were great...with the big groups of skills(Melee, Firearms, Gunnery)...BUT you god VERY few points to spend if you took anything under C..D gave 20 and those 20 would go damned fast...especially for deckers and mages who also had to take theory as active, this was pre knowledge...so it would typically help the player to concentrate at least to spread the points a bit. Specialization usually was found in a couple of skills for the same reason. And with metahumanity auto-knocking out Priority A it really made players stretch at times. So with 20 skill points, sometimes it helped the character rather than taking Sorcery: 6 and Conjuring :6(using 12 of 20 points), Sorcery(Spellcasting) 3(5) and Conjuring(Elementals)3(5) freed up a few points for Magical Theory or whatever. In a way, the generalists were stronger out of the box in SR2, but in another way, they were more limited in the fact they had roughly 3 or 4 skills as opposed to the concentrator/specializer's 6 or 7.
SR3 boosted the points to a better level(well priority A...., 50 skill points for Priority A was a freaking lot), and even splitting the skills up allowed for some good ones at the start. Mutli specializations and the fact someone with a 6 could boost with karma to a 7 for 3, then to an 8 for four(assuming 8 attribute), then 9 for 9....ouch.
SR4 system does seem to have a bit of Specialist favor now. It does help a lot. However, they do at least get rid of the SR3 ''can keep specializing in many different things'. But with having to kind of stretch your BP at times (in SR3 i can whip up a character in a short amount of time, even with Becks or a points system, but in SR4 i find myself juggling more), they do help out alot.
So, a character could start with say, Pistols 6.
After getting some karma up(lets say for arguments sake he is Quickness 8 with some mods), he can get Ares Predator 7 for a mere 3 karma. So he has Pistols 6, Ares Predator 7.
Later he starts using a Ruger Super Warhawk. For 3 karma, he can get Pistols 6, Ruger Super Warhawk 7.
This can go on up to the amount of the original skill if i remember correctly. And a general skill had to be at least one lower than specialization(so in some cases, specialists would have to end up raising the general skill to raise their specializations). Someone with 1 pistols couldnt go over a 3 in Ares Predator until they raised Pistols to 2.
I do think SR3 leaned a LITTLE more toward generalist at chargen in that respect. For skills with not that many specializations(Stealth had Hiding, Sneaking, Tailing, and Palming i think), you could get uber in them for VERY little karma if you came out of the box with a big skill. (One thing i liked about Becks chargen, it sort of whittled down the huge amounts of 6's at the start.)
In SR1 and 2, Generalists were great...with the big groups of skills(Melee, Firearms, Gunnery)...BUT you god VERY few points to spend if you took anything under C..D gave 20 and those 20 would go damned fast...especially for deckers and mages who also had to take theory as active, this was pre knowledge...so it would typically help the player to concentrate at least to spread the points a bit. Specialization usually was found in a couple of skills for the same reason. And with metahumanity auto-knocking out Priority A it really made players stretch at times. So with 20 skill points, sometimes it helped the character rather than taking Sorcery: 6 and Conjuring :6(using 12 of 20 points), Sorcery(Spellcasting) 3(5) and Conjuring(Elementals)3(5) freed up a few points for Magical Theory or whatever. In a way, the generalists were stronger out of the box in SR2, but in another way, they were more limited in the fact they had roughly 3 or 4 skills as opposed to the concentrator/specializer's 6 or 7.
SR3 boosted the points to a better level(well priority A...., 50 skill points for Priority A was a freaking lot), and even splitting the skills up allowed for some good ones at the start. Mutli specializations and the fact someone with a 6 could boost with karma to a 7 for 3, then to an 8 for four(assuming 8 attribute), then 9 for 9....ouch.
SR4 system does seem to have a bit of Specialist favor now. It does help a lot. However, they do at least get rid of the SR3 ''can keep specializing in many different things'. But with having to kind of stretch your BP at times (in SR3 i can whip up a character in a short amount of time, even with Becks or a points system, but in SR4 i find myself juggling more), they do help out alot.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
I didn't know there was a problem with the generalist. I don't see it as a terrible drawback, but if you want a reason for people not to Specialize, then I refer you to the rules about not being able to Specialize any skill while it is included in a Group. So if you purchase a Group of Skills at chargen, you could not Specialize in any one of those Skills until after chargen. |
Like that's a drawback? That just hurts generalists even more, by capping their starting levels at 4. If you want to be a *good* generalist, then you'll want your two 5's in those group skills.
Groups are only really useful at low levels, as backups for muddling through: 10 BP for rank 1 in a bundle of skills is really nice, and 20 BP for rank 2 isn't bad. However, it starts getting expensive at 3; and if you really need all those skills at 4, you probably need at least one skill even higher. Once you factor in specializations, skill groups become less and less attractive.
The problem here is that specialization costs you almost nothing, has no drawbacks, and no longer forces you to choose between raising the general skill and/or the specialization. Sure, we want characters to specialize; but if specialization is a freebie, then we're going to see hyperspecialists: one trick ponies and two-dimensional characters.
| QUOTE |
| SR4 system does seem to have a bit of Specialist favor now. It does help a lot. However, they do at least get rid of the SR3 ''can keep specializing in many different things'. But with having to kind of stretch your BP at times (in SR3 i can whip up a character in a short amount of time, even with Becks or a points system, but in SR4 i find myself juggling more), they do help out alot. |
In all versions of Shadowrun, specialists always outshone the generalists... in their specialty. You have to specialize to keep up. However, you could make broader characters in previous editions, making it easier to have a character who wasn't totally useless outside of his or her chosen specialization. Personally, I like seeing more depth in character generation; it shows the player is invested in the character. Hyperstatted characters tend to be designed for one thing, and fade out when they're not in their zone.
Well, Specialists did outshine compared...it cost almost nothing in SR3 to up a speciality. Nowadays you have to up the full skill, and the specality goes up with it.
I guess its just figuring out, is 2 BP REALLY too little? I dunno, before changing anything, i want to see it break a game first. Perhaps you guys had it break a game...im not the expert on SR4...ive played far more of the older ones, but Ive played enough SR4 and GMd it, too...and i have to say the specializations did not in any way break our games.
Thats typically how i deal with any rules. i dont go changing them until 1. I see it really break something in the game(either for PC OR Against pcs...if a rule is broken, its broken), OR i also houserule things if they are the opposite...so useless they shouldn't even exist in the game.
Occationaly i make the houserule of something that might end up broadening something(SR4 chargen is an example, i made a few tweaks there that allow even more flexibility but it still has drawbacks attached to it.)
'But, if the specialties are somehow breaking your games, then perhaps a houserule is in place, tacking on a couple BP to the cost may do the trick.(5 BP is plenty, IMO, with the point stretching that has to go on...that way it costs the only slightly more than upping regular skill.)
As said above, i like seeing in depth character gen to....in fact, when we make our characters, it takes quite a while for us to get everything together and how we see the character. Many of us write down skills were interested in after generating a short background of what we want them to be, etc, then allocate, come up with new ideas. Its natural that some folks are going to specialize. But there is something to be said for a strong skill group generalist. Ive played them and they are very fun...
Hmm...that being said...you know, perhaps, it may sound strong...but if you upped the cap on Skill Groups to allowing one at 5 or 6, you might lose some of your specialists...but, that might also be a little more unbalanced than a crapload of specialists.
I guess its just figuring out, is 2 BP REALLY too little? I dunno, before changing anything, i want to see it break a game first. Perhaps you guys had it break a game...im not the expert on SR4...ive played far more of the older ones, but Ive played enough SR4 and GMd it, too...and i have to say the specializations did not in any way break our games.
Thats typically how i deal with any rules. i dont go changing them until 1. I see it really break something in the game(either for PC OR Against pcs...if a rule is broken, its broken), OR i also houserule things if they are the opposite...so useless they shouldn't even exist in the game.
Occationaly i make the houserule of something that might end up broadening something(SR4 chargen is an example, i made a few tweaks there that allow even more flexibility but it still has drawbacks attached to it.)
'But, if the specialties are somehow breaking your games, then perhaps a houserule is in place, tacking on a couple BP to the cost may do the trick.(5 BP is plenty, IMO, with the point stretching that has to go on...that way it costs the only slightly more than upping regular skill.)
As said above, i like seeing in depth character gen to....in fact, when we make our characters, it takes quite a while for us to get everything together and how we see the character. Many of us write down skills were interested in after generating a short background of what we want them to be, etc, then allocate, come up with new ideas. Its natural that some folks are going to specialize. But there is something to be said for a strong skill group generalist. Ive played them and they are very fun...
Hmm...that being said...you know, perhaps, it may sound strong...but if you upped the cap on Skill Groups to allowing one at 5 or 6, you might lose some of your specialists...but, that might also be a little more unbalanced than a crapload of specialists.
When I noted 10 BP, i was a little lost, I was thinking skill groups. It would actually be 4 BP, the cost of upping the skill 1 die. So you choose between 1 generalist die and 2 specialist dice.
There are more reasons to change a rule than just the rule being broken. Sometimes a rule doesn't feel the way it should. Also, a broken rule doesn't necessarily break gameplay. I feel specializations are broken not because of their game effect, but because they are such an obvious choice that no character would ever skip out on specializing.
Final house rule proposal, after much deliberation:
Specializations: 4BP. Adds 2 dice to all skill tests involving the specialization. A skill that the character has specialized in has it's skill cap reduced by 1.
Now getting a specialization is a balanced choice up against getting a basic rank (the first part), and there's a good reason to remain a generalist (the second part). Maxed out, a specialist will be 1 die ahead of the generalist in their specialty, and one die behind everywhere else. The only exception to this would be a twinked out adept, with aptitude, could sqeeze 1 more augmented skill rank out of it as a generalist. So that specific line of min-maxing would make a generalist just as good as a maxed out specialist. But seeing as how it costs more than the specialist, and you need to be a completely twinked adept to do it, it seems to work for me.
There are more reasons to change a rule than just the rule being broken. Sometimes a rule doesn't feel the way it should. Also, a broken rule doesn't necessarily break gameplay. I feel specializations are broken not because of their game effect, but because they are such an obvious choice that no character would ever skip out on specializing.
Final house rule proposal, after much deliberation:
Specializations: 4BP. Adds 2 dice to all skill tests involving the specialization. A skill that the character has specialized in has it's skill cap reduced by 1.
Now getting a specialization is a balanced choice up against getting a basic rank (the first part), and there's a good reason to remain a generalist (the second part). Maxed out, a specialist will be 1 die ahead of the generalist in their specialty, and one die behind everywhere else. The only exception to this would be a twinked out adept, with aptitude, could sqeeze 1 more augmented skill rank out of it as a generalist. So that specific line of min-maxing would make a generalist just as good as a maxed out specialist. But seeing as how it costs more than the specialist, and you need to be a completely twinked adept to do it, it seems to work for me.
Well, i see your point in the rule being 'unfair' or 'broken' and one of those 'why do anything else' rules.
I like your method of specializing, seems like it gives reason to generalize and isnt too unbalanced. if i were to try it in my game tho, i'd keep the specialization cost a 2 BP but lower the cap by 1. In the older editions, specializing was 'free', in the sense that as the tradeoff you(temporarily) lowered the general cap(you could purchase it up with karma, and with no skill caps, you could get insane), but it wasnt too cost efficent to do so. (it was better just to keep upping the specialization and the general cap when needed to.)
With this method, the cap would be forever lowered (5 for most characters, 6 for Aptitude), i think a 2 BP cost is fine...4 BPs AND the cap limit i think, might, do the opposite(ie, no one would specialize anymore...they'd just be generalists, 4 BPs for an extra one die over the generalist, 2 dice total, might be a little much). Granted, skills cost 4bp per point/per die, but you get the whole skill for that, not just a specialization.
It seems what they TRIED to do with specialization, was to make it cheaper, sure(as it always has been, to up specializations it was far cheaper with karma), but by not lowering the cap, they made it a no-brainer.
Hmm....saying it that way....i guess it does seem that its not the cost of specialization...its the fact the cap stays the same. Perhaps the lowering of the cap is what will get folks to think more.
If i were to playtest one, i'd give yours a try as is, then try the adjusted method(2BP cost, cap lowered by one), and then the other method(5 BP spec cost, cap limit normal, not lowered), and see which seems to work the best and see how the players react.
I guess it needs to be seen in action with people...ie ask them 'ok, is it a no-brainer, or does it take some thought?'
Well, off to do some chargen playtesting
PS: Anyone ever try a variant of SR2's Concentrations with Skill Groups? IE, Firearms Skill Group, Concentrate in Pistols(+1 die), for 4-5 BP, cap lowered by one?
I like your method of specializing, seems like it gives reason to generalize and isnt too unbalanced. if i were to try it in my game tho, i'd keep the specialization cost a 2 BP but lower the cap by 1. In the older editions, specializing was 'free', in the sense that as the tradeoff you(temporarily) lowered the general cap(you could purchase it up with karma, and with no skill caps, you could get insane), but it wasnt too cost efficent to do so. (it was better just to keep upping the specialization and the general cap when needed to.)
With this method, the cap would be forever lowered (5 for most characters, 6 for Aptitude), i think a 2 BP cost is fine...4 BPs AND the cap limit i think, might, do the opposite(ie, no one would specialize anymore...they'd just be generalists, 4 BPs for an extra one die over the generalist, 2 dice total, might be a little much). Granted, skills cost 4bp per point/per die, but you get the whole skill for that, not just a specialization.
It seems what they TRIED to do with specialization, was to make it cheaper, sure(as it always has been, to up specializations it was far cheaper with karma), but by not lowering the cap, they made it a no-brainer.
Hmm....saying it that way....i guess it does seem that its not the cost of specialization...its the fact the cap stays the same. Perhaps the lowering of the cap is what will get folks to think more.
If i were to playtest one, i'd give yours a try as is, then try the adjusted method(2BP cost, cap lowered by one), and then the other method(5 BP spec cost, cap limit normal, not lowered), and see which seems to work the best and see how the players react.
I guess it needs to be seen in action with people...ie ask them 'ok, is it a no-brainer, or does it take some thought?'
Well, off to do some chargen playtesting
PS: Anyone ever try a variant of SR2's Concentrations with Skill Groups? IE, Firearms Skill Group, Concentrate in Pistols(+1 die), for 4-5 BP, cap lowered by one?
| QUOTE |
| In the older editions, specializing was 'free', in the sense that as the tradeoff you(temporarily) lowered the general cap(you could purchase it up with karma, and with no skill caps, you could get insane), but it wasnt too cost efficent to do so. (it was better just to keep upping the specialization and the general cap when needed to.) |
Not quite. In SR3, your specialization level was capped at 1.5x your general skill. Sooner or later, you had to up the general skill as well.
PP: Doubling the cost might work at chargen, but how would you alter the Karma costs for advancement? Characters might not start with specs in all their stats, but they'll buy them fairly quickly once play begins.
Simple: Whatever system I use for character generation (Karma or BP), I aslo use for character advanacement.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| In SR3, your specialization level was capped at 1.5x your general skill. |
[nitpick]I believe it was 2x the main Skill ... not 1.5
[/nitpick]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.