Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
Have you looked at the alternative pricing rules in PU3?
|
I have. Didn't I reference them? I recall them being, basically, 1 point per skill, minimum 5. Which still leaves the problem that the big Talents are too pricy compared to attributes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
The problem with talents is that their value isn't strictly a function of how many skills they are -- it's with what skills they are. A talent with a bunch of skills that are of marginal value, are highly redundant, have glaring gaps that will have to be filled in, or have a lot of shared defaults just isn't ever going to be that valuable. By comparison, the 'every skill I want to be good at' talent is fairly valuable.
|
Well, first of all, the point of Talents is to be useful to the character who takes them, and to give that character a defined field of expertise or ability. RAW warn against "me talents", but if you don't want at least most of the skills in a Talent, why
would you take it? I think this is a case where the RAW miss the point by erring on the side of caution.
As to the point that some skills are more useful than others, I can't think of any mechanic that can alleviate that, other than pricing skills by utility (yeah, that gigantic can of worms, which I don't intend to argue for). If you think a particular Talent is overpriced for its utility, either don't take it, or go to your GM and make a case for lowering the cost.