Alternate GURPS: Seeking a minimalistic (25-50) skill list . . .

[Desthro]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, there's something to be said for having the master of multiple weapons be a coherent concept. If the problem is "4 points for +1 is too cheap", that's already a problem for Johnny One-Skill, and I might split into "melee attack" and "melee defense".

They are already against using talents to improve groups of combat skills, (for "balance" reasons.) Or at least that was the line a long time ago. I don't think that would have changed by now. Though I could be wrong. . .

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Desthro

They are already against using talents to improve groups of combat skills, (for "balance" reasons.)

Yes, but I wasn't responding to 'they'. I was responding to Bruno.

[dataweaver]

Following up on my last post, here are how your skill list addresses the various Challenges, to the best of my knowledge:

• Animals: Animal Ken
• Combat: Marksmanship, Melee, Thrown, Unarmed; War?
• Communications: Wordsmith?
• Crafting: Arts, Crafts
• Deceit: Deceit
• Detective Work: Investigation
• Esoterica: Occultism
• Establishment: Bureaucracy, I guess.
• Exploration: Outdoorsman (when navigating in the wild)
• Inventing: Crafts, most likely.
• Medicine: Biotech?
• Military: no clue.
• Mobility: Athletics
• Money: not really covered.
• Nautical: unsure.
• Outdoors: Outdoorsman
• Performing: Arts
• Plants: Outdoorsman
• Research: Investigation, Science
• Sabotage: Larceny? Crafts?
• Science: Science
• Security: not sure.
• Sneaking: Stealth
• Social Engineering: Charm, Provoke, Psych
• Social Sciences: Science?
• Space: unsure.
• Stealing: Larceny
• Streets: unsure.
• Technical Means: Larceny
• Transportation: Drive

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Bruno

In general, good idea. But inclination here is to find a way to split up Melee first; of course I play a lot of action oriented games bat having that one in particular be a Very Hard skill, even for a perk for a +3 to one specialty, makes me cringe.
My first impulse is just a 1/H vs 2/H split, but I think there's a torches-and-pitchforks mob out there for making the current -4 default penalty between modes even worse.
My second impulse is balanced vs unbalanced, but where do you put stuff that was originally covered by wonky skills like Net, Whip, Garrote, and Shield? Never mind the Force <fnu> or Monowire <fnu> skills.

For the record, the approach I'd suggest would be to use a Familiarity-like setup, but broader and moe expensive: each “familiarity” would be fairly broad (aim at any given skill rarely having more than five or six of them), would default to the core skill at -3 unless otherwise specified, and would be usable without penalty once a Perk is taken to enable it (with you getting one for free).

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by Desthro

They are already against using talents to improve groups of combat skills, (for "balance" reasons.) Or at least that was the line a long time ago. I don't think that would have changed by now. Though I could be wrong. . .

Depends on the specific "they." Technically combat skills in Talents are discouraged but not forbidden. The Power-Ups devoted to Talents recommended allowing them only for a few skills in a Talent which strikes me as a little odd - a 15 point Talent for all weapon skills seems less of a point crock than a 5 point Talent covering multiple weapons.

That said, a while back I suggested using Talents to cover overall proficiency in a martial art (or multiple martial arts) and it met with a fair amount of approval including from at least one GURPS professional. So combat skills in Talents are risque but technically legal.

[Varyon]

Thinking further, I don't think we should approach this as "How to merge the current skills together," but rather as an all new skill system that covers what's needed. Current rules would be converted on a common sense basis - if we've got an Agility skill or something that covers actions like jumping, tumbling, sprinting, etc, then naturally we'll use that in place of Acrobatics for tic-tacs, Acrobatic Dodges, kip-ups, and so forth.

What these skills should be, however, is a bit beyond me, although I have some ideas. I'll need to think further on them.

Specialization should still be an option - in fact, I'd be inclined to have various methods and degrees of specialization. Assuming we stick with [4]/+1 once you're far enough above default (I'm actually leaning more toward [5]/+1, but I'm not certain how the buildup should be handled - maybe [1], [2], [3], [5], [5]/+1 but that seems to make price jump too quickly), I could see something like the following system.

First off, specialization can be Broad, Moderate, or Narrow. Exact definitions are up to the GM - Broad would typically cover multiple related skills in Basic Set GURPS, Moderate would typically cover a single skill (or a couple of skills with close defaults), and Narrow would cover a single use of a skill. When picking a skill, you may opt to specialize it in one of these categories. Whatever doesn't follow under your specialization is at -3 to skill. Whatever does is at +1 for Broad, +2 for Moderate, and +3 for Narrow. Optionally, you can get a further +2 to your specialization by having your skill not apply at all to uses that aren't covered by it - a character who hyperspecializes his Melee skill to cover Thrusting Broadswords and only Thrusting Broadswords is at +5 to use such, but lacks the ability to use other weapons or fight unarmed at better than Default.

Following this, you may opt to "buy up" a specialization (which must be covered by whatever the skill you purchased specialized in, if anything). Broad cost [3]/+1, Moderate cost [2]/+1, Narrow cost [1]/+1. You may only get up to a +2 from any given specialization at this point, and the total bonus here cannot exceed +4. A character who has an unmodified Melee skill at 14 could spend [4] for +2 when using Swords (moderate) and [2] for a further +2 when using Thrusting Broadswords (narrow), for example, giving him skill 14 for most weapons, skill 16 when using a sword, and skill 18 when using a Thrusting Broadsword.

It's likely appropriate to require some minimal investment in a skill before any specialization is available; spending at least [4] in the skill seems appropriate.

[Desthro]

Originally Posted by Infornific

Depends on the specific "they." Technically combat skills in Talents are discouraged but not forbidden. The Power-Ups devoted to Talents recommended allowing them only for a few skills in a Talent which strikes me as a little odd - a 15 point Talent for all weapon skills seems less of a point crock than a 5 point Talent covering multiple weapons.

That said, a while back I suggested using Talents to cover overall proficiency in a martial art (or multiple martial arts) and it met with a fair amount of approval including from at least one GURPS professional. So combat skills in Talents are risque but technically legal.

Gotta love ambiguity. I'm in the camp of "if it works, use it," and I am all for using talents to cover martial weapons skills, in fact in many of my fantasy campaigns I use a martial talent to govern their melee combat prowess just that way. I just don't understand what the big to-do about it is I guess. -.-

[ArchonShiva]

I'm nearly certain that "don't make a Combat Talent" was just a false alarm in early 4e design, that's long proven unneeded.

You don't break GURPS by having sixteen weapon skills at 18, you break it by having one at 32.
+1 DX -0.25 Speed gives you way more than a 15-point combat talent anyway.

The only problematic version is probably a 5-point Talent covering Karate, Judo and your melee and ranged reason all at once (in a campaign where this is even relevant), but that's for the GM to turn down, much like he would turn down your talent for Stealth, AK, Survival, Engineering, Armoury and Thaumatology, no matter what you call it.

Hint: You can tell a player-created Talent is broken because they try to start with four levels.

At any rate, the prohibition will officially stand because it's on the books, but it's pretty safe to say it shouldn't stop anyone.

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Hint: You can tell a player-created Talent is broken because they try to start with four levels.

Hint: If a talent is remotely not-terrible a player will try to start with four levels if he can afford it and isn't sure the GM will allow it to be increased later.

Because Attributes and skills can always be raised down the road, but sometimes you're stuck with exactly those Advantages you define yourself as having at the outset.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ArchonShiva

Hint: You can tell a player-created Talent is broken because they try to start with four levels.

Hint: almost all talents are things you want either 4 or 0 levels of.