Combat Reflexes without defense bonus

[Tomsdad]

Yeah I've got no issue with Combat reflexes being justified as being a learned response to certain stimuli that takes a while to develop. It may have unfortunate consequences when it spills over to over areas of life, so I'm equally happy for those how take to take some corresponding disadvantages if they wish.

However I'd certainly not hard link it to such a nebulous thing as "insanity"

TBH what ever I've read, heard (and that includes speaking directly to people who have seen combat), the concept that a learned response to perceived threats gets more and more hardwired into your OODA loop is not remarkable.

So I really don't have problem with CR either in concept or even in pricing.

A lot* of time in real life the real life trade off to developing the real life equivalent of CR is not x amount of points that could have been used to get better at something else, it's that you quite possible have been in combat long enough to develop it. Which is a disadvantage that expresses itself in several ways other than costing CP.


*although I gather some training regimes try to instil it before you see combat!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Nope, I'm forgetting nothing. To give +2 to a skill is 4 points (p. B118).

Personally there's no way I'd cost it that low in isolation (or as you say even lower since defence is an effect that's contained within the wider benefits of skill).

I know what pg118 says but to me that more about including that benefit within the cost of larger advantage. e.g it cites talent which cost more because they cover a selection of skills (and IMO talents have significant potential to be unbalanced if they're not carefully managed)

if nothing else that page also suggest that the max skill bonus should be +3.

But in general why would any skill that cost 4pt per +1 in general, cost you 2 pts per +1 in abstract here?

(another point of comparison here is Power talents that cost 5pt per +1)

[AlexanderHowl]

Your might as well make the same argument for Flexibility, which gives a significant bonus in combat and to skills for 5 points. No one would pay 20 points for the benefits of Flexibility, just like no one would pay 60 points for the benefits of Combat Reflexes.

[mhd]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Your might as well make the same argument for Flexibility, which gives a significant bonus in combat and to skills for 5 points.

Significant? Breaking free from Close Combat?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Your might as well make the same argument for Flexibility, which gives a significant bonus in combat and to skills for 5 points. No one would pay 20 points for the benefits of Flexibility, just like no one would pay 60 points for the benefits of Combat Reflexes.

Sorry if that's in response to my post I'm not sure what you mean.

I certainly agree that you can build the benefits different advantages give you in different ways and according to different costings*, but such is the inherent natures of system that has a huge variety of advantage and disadvantage that overlap in terms fo game effects at times.

(and of course it's seldom exactly a like for like comparison. CR doesn't come in levels, so that first level of ED dodge, Parry and block it contains might be cheap, but I'll need to pay full ED costs if I want to go higher (or buy stats that costs even more but come with extra benefits)


*just look at the cost of skills vs. Talents

[AlexanderHowl]

Combat Reflexes has levels, the second level is Enhanced Time Sense.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Combat Reflexes has levels, the second level is Enhanced Time Sense.

Not really, ETS includes CR but it's not the same thing as being a leveled up version of it, for instance you get don't get any additional levels of active defences. As I said you need to buy ED, Dodge, Parry or Block for that (or increase stats and/or skill)

if nothing else ETS is supernatural advantage, so precise examinations of realistic benefit to cost is moot anyway

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But in general why would any skill that cost 4pt per +1 in general, cost you 2 pts per +1 in abstract here?

Because that isn't the cost at all. I once agreed with you, then switched positions once I did the math.

• To get to where a skill talent is better, you have to have already spent two points on it, which would have already built up the skill to the Attribute level (if average), and again, there's a limit of three levels, as you said. It's not meant to be grabbed willy-nilly by players; the ruling is there for the GM.
• If the single-skill talent cost 4/level, it would not ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, be taken, since it would actually be worse than buying the skill.
• If the single-skill talent cost 4/level, it would not be cost-competitive with a multi-skill talent including that skill, as such a talent would be about 1 point/skill/level. If a GM-made single-skill talent bothers you, then talents in general should bother you.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

Because that isn't the cost at all. I once agreed with you, then switched positions once I did the math.

• To get to where a skill talent is better, you have to have already spent two points on it, which would have already built up the skill to the Attribute level (if average)

Not quite sure what you mean here? The first couple of level in skills are cheaper than 4pt per level. So yeah every one will spend their first 4pts in the skill and then go over to talent. But that doesn't really change the overall comparison since that 1st 4pts spend will basically be the default for either, since after they have been spent both talent and skill will build on them?

And that just vs. a theoretical 2pt per 1 skill talent, the actual multi skill talents end up way cheaper per skill, talents as written tend to bare close watching IME!

(which is a point kind of made by your 3rd bullet point below. Yeah 4pts per skill might well be unattractively expensive compared multi skill talent cost per skill, but that to me that says more about the cost of multi skill talents that 4pts per skill advantages i.e skills! )


Just to say I'm not actually anti multi-skill talents, I just tend to keep a careful eye on them!

Originally Posted by Rasputin

• and again, there's a limit of three levels, as you said. It's not meant to be grabbed willy-nilly by players; the ruling is there for the GM.
• If the single-skill talent cost 4/level, it would not ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, be taken, since it would actually be worse than buying the skill.
• If the single-skill talent cost 4/level, it would not be cost-competitive with a multi-skill talent including that skill, as such a talent would be about 1 point/skill/level. If a GM-made single-skill talent bothers you, then talents in general should bother you.

I agree with your list about comparing talent to skill, but my point was just there's a danger of taking costings from one context (in this case a +1 in Skill is 2pts form pg118) and applying it in abstract in other areas. Especially when (if I'm reading you right) you further discount it because you only going for a sub category of what the skill gets you (defence) and then discount it again because you are going for a sub category of that (individual Active defences)*.

All of which make sense in abstract But I think you were talking about 1/5 price multiplier, so I think you were talking about a cost of of 1 or 2 points for each level of Parry or Block?

I.e while I agree in abstract with your process, I think the end result is unbalanced


Ultimately as I said there seems to be a few places that when you drill down into it the same game effects cost different amounts. But I think it's reasonable to keep an eye on the contexts of them, not base costings on the cheapest ones.

*which thinking about it doesn't actually work because no one skill given you both blocking and parrying you would normally need to invest points in two skills to improve both (or spend points in DX)

[Kesendeja]

Originally Posted by Brandy

Here's my house rule (happily stolen from Luther, who used to be a frequent poster on these forums). Combat Reflexes is done away with, and replaced by:

Combat Veteran [5]
You are rarely surprised for more than a moment. This gives you +2 to all Fright Checks, +6 on all IQ rolls to wake up, or to recover from surprise or mental "stun". Your side gets +1 on initiative rolls to avoid a surprise attack — +2 if you are the leader.

Fast Reflexes [15]
You have uncannily fast reflexes, and get +1 to all defense rolls and +1 to Fast-Draw skill.

Did some calculations last night, and for the advantages Combat Veteran should be 10 points, and Fast Reflexes as stated should be at least a 20 points.