The Problem With Magic

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by maximara

Six skills are Megadungeon specializations. Why?

Because those skills are usable there. And the environment is different enough to require a separate specialization.

Five are sub specializations of Connoisseur. Again, why?

Have you ever read Connoisseur? They apply to different things.

If these are needed then wildcard version would cut down the skill count:

And what other skills are now being covered under these Wildcards? And if there are none, then they are pointless (except to suck up points) as I spent only 2 points in those skills and you propse to spend 6.

The 58 skills (I think I counted right) now becomes 49.

Those individual skills were chosen because those were the ones I wanted. Not some large lump of skill that includes things I don't want.

I should point out the number of skills is not as important as the points that go into the skills. "Each point is the equivalent of 200 hours of learning." (Basic Set pg 292)

I ignore that. So do my Players, so have most of the GMs I've played with.

Professor William Headley has 28 mundane skills and 9 magic skills (three paths, 6 spells) using 48 points. He is 43.

He's using 48 points in mundane skills alone. He's got another 36 points in magic paths and rituals.

I have to ask how old is the Sage supposed to have been?

Doesn't matter. But it's over 200 years.

Xing La at first glance has a moderate 23 skills but one of them (Drive!) is a wildcard skill which equates to every specialization of the skill in the game (there are 9 listed under Driving).

And 127 points in skills. Is she 'old' enough to have that many points in skills?!

Originally Posted by Celjabba

In 3e, yes, there was an age based limit for cp in skills.

I pitched that rule out in 3e also.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

146 IQ skills? Now I feel less bad about breaking Per and Will from IQ. Good to know.

Yeah, that's why I joined the "Will and Per are their own stats" club.

837 spells? That's nearly triple the entire spectrum of skills in base GURPS. Further, every single skill added is both IQ and boosted by Magery. A ten point talent that affects every non-magic skill seems far too good, why does magic get to do triple that?

A number of those spells can be excised without loss. The Magery thing is a holdover from 3e... it was remarkable back then (when limited to 3 levels) and it's only grown since...

Bow being better than any missile spell kind of makes my point of how bad the missile spells are.

Missile spells not being 'all that' is the only thing keeping uppity Wizards in their place.

I don't understand. It sounds like you understand my point (that wizards are far more capable than their point totals suggest).

I have no idea what scc was saying (it's his quote).

I've yet to GM or play in a campaign with default Magic where the wizard wasn't basically better in almost everyway to any other character...

Your GM is doing everyone but the mage a disservice in some way.

Maybe I'm doing things wrong, but it really seems that Rogue and beyond can just avoid combat and get to where they want with their respective skills (just as Wizard does for Rogue and Face often gets better results than Wizards if with less spectacular effects).

Is there a reason the Warrior doesn't have Stealth, Climbing, Jumping, Lockpicking, etc on their sheet like the Rogue seems to? If 'avoid combat' easily equals 'get the loot' with no downsides, why is anyone doing anything else?

Power-As-Magic doesn't have to have anti-magic built in. I can just have many of the features of magic without the -10% Mana Sensitive.

Okay, hang on. I went back and reread your post. I think you were saying you hate having 'anti-magic' everywhere. But... that's the one thing limiting a mage. If you strip that from a campaign you are saying "Mages are supreme, there is no reason to play anything other than a Jedi Mage".

I've been using Timeslip as an example because it's blatantly an abuse of perfectly legitimate effects...

Yes, when used legitimately on yourself or an ally. Common sense says if you aren't doing this your are abusing the spell and the GM needs to house rule it.

I have someone attack them so it's actually used as a Blocking spell (I didn't see any rules about resisting Blocking Spells)

Read Fumble, Command, and Turnblade. They are the Blocking spells meant to be cast on an enemy so they have [drumroll] a resistance!

When Timeslip was written the author probably didn't think someone would cast it on an enemy because at their core Blocking spells are defenses, equal to Dodge, Block, and Parry and you would be hard pressed to find ways to Dodge, Block, or Parry for enemy and turn it to your advantage. So if you are routinely doing this you are breaking the spirit of the rules.

You don't have to fight the enemies if the treasure is in easy to grab locations...

"Hey, the Mage got us free lunch, let's blow this dungeon and go spend our reward in the local tavern! Huzzah!"

Not seeing the issue, unless the non-mages are sore they aren't doing the loot grabbing? In which case why aren't they playing mages?

It's not obvious if any college should just be taken out wholly, especially if they make sense thematically before knowing what the effects of the spells are (and thus it's not obvious if any are too good or not good at all).

If a college is routinely giving your game problems, then excise it whole. In this case, the Gate college tends to be problematic, that's why DF excised it almost completely.

An invested fighter with 18 ST, 16 DX, and 16 HT is already 260pts alone and less capable than an invested wizard of 100pts less (with the large advantage of being hard to outright kill)

Unless said Wizard is heavy in the Mind magic, I really doubt it. Even invisibility only gets you so far.

That apprentice wizard still has the starting point of IQM 18, so every point you get is an entire extra spell and another tool in your arsenal.

That mage went half the campaign with no other spells because he wasn't allowed to buy them. His primary skill for a long time was Spear (ignoring the time he burned down 'half' the city).

As for that skill list, that seems pretty paltry (I see a lot of 11s which is exactly below reliable and still more further below). I'm not certain what this character is doing, honestly.

Most of it is at default with Dabbler bonuses. If I had a full 250 points to play with, then those skills would have actual points in them! (the DX based skills would still be very low though).

I like that list, but it also depends on campaign type how important that list is. If I was to restrict everyone in the party to making those skills necessary, there'd be a lot more focus on those general areas instead of making fun, disparate characters that work together.

That is 110% true. I always build an Everyman Skill List for every campaign I run, so my Players know what skills will generally be important.

As for enchantments being rare/non-existent, I thought that was the base assumption (such that even things like magical "torches", a +1 sword, and a staff of fireball would be incredible treasures, not something you just go to a store down the street to buy). That's why I assumed non-wziards had not much access to magic.

So the three books stuffed with Magic Items weren't a clue in any way? The entire Enchantment college? A whole section in Magic discussing magic items? The fact that a mage's pay scale is based around cottage level industrial enchanting?

I'll hammer this point one last time than I'll shut up about it:

If you give awesome stuff to only one Character type, you are saying "Everyone should play this awesome Character type".

I don't know what spells might go from "broken" to "worthless" with even just a 2 FP cost difference, or if that will even solve the actual problem (it might make a spell both too good and not worth using, instead of good enough and worth using)

No spells go from "worthless to broken" at skill 20. They go from "cast a little" to "cast all the time". That's it. So if you think a spell is terrible at "cast all the time" don't allow it.

As for the 'toxic synergy", how do I know what spells shouldn't exist? I might not even know it's broken if no one thinks it's worth taking or never uses it to it's maximum capability.

If no one has ever used a spell in a 'broken' fashion why are you worried about it?

On that note, why is Recover Energy a skill? It might be the only "passive" spell and skill in GURPS, when passive effects seem to be normally advantages.

Wiser minds than we have pondered this to no avail. Most agree it should be an Advantage costing roughly 10 points.

But it was made as a spell way back when and as 4e is largely a 3e port with some edits, it stayed.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

The "reverse drain" spell might be better as a Meta/Healing spell that lets you take the effects of a healing spell onto yourself instead of spending FP to fix (such as Empathic from Powers for healing). How much would it cost? Would it require a roll?

Sorry, I couldn't figure out what you meant before, you mean Lend Vitality that cost HP instead of FP?

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

That exemplifies my problem with anti-magic. If anti-magic exists as a balancing concern, then a wizard is either too good or worthless, basically whenever the GM wants.

That what a GM is for. Not seeing the issue here.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior View Post
The "reverse drain" spell might be better as a Meta/Healing spell that lets you take the effects of a healing spell onto yourself instead of spending FP to fix (such as Empathic from Powers for healing). How much would it cost? Would it require a roll?

Share Vitality is exactly the spell you are talking about.


Also note: Time Out is an Area spell, you can't cast it 'on' an opponent. Casting it where an opponent is standing gives them a dodge roll.

[kirbwarrior]

Those answers would not be different at all if I had designed that spell using a point design design system. (I'll put them at the end because they're actually irrelevant to the issue at hand). The worst possible reason to make a worldbuilding design choice is "It fits into my budget". As a GM you shouldn't have a budget.

I don't understand, what do you mean by "GM budget"? And why wouldn't they be different with a point-buy system? When building traits, I don't often give in-game costs since the point is buying the trait instead of having to spend FP.

It has those characteristics because those are the characteristics I wanted it to have at that moment. Now that I look at it again I realize I also want a higher chance of more than one turn of damage so I'd put a negative modifier based on margin of success, decreasing by one with each cycle.

What is the system you used to determine what effects of the spell you wanted? For instance, my idea for the spell was something along the lines of "Decide a specific poison, then this spell to give it to them". I don't care what the cost or time is when conceptualizing the spell, I just want a cost and time that is correct.

Once again, not a problem that is really solved with point-building systems.

I've almost never had this problem with point-buy, while I've almost always had this problem with vague systems. With point buy, there is plenty of baseline to base spells around, it also happens to be the same baseline used to make any character.

The reasoning behind Poison Blood: It's a modified Poison Food. It requires a Body Control prereq to be able to affect a living body and Drunkenness is a Body Control spell that simulates a toxin in the body. This is a just a different toxin.

That makes sense conceptually. Does Drunkeness actually make them drunk?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Your GM is doing everyone but the mage a disservice in some way.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It's the nature of "wizards" in most roleplaying systems I've played and/or GM'd. Any pointers on how to avoid that would be fantastic.

Is there a reason the Warrior doesn't have Stealth, Climbing, Jumping, Lockpicking, etc on their sheet like the Rogue seems to? If 'avoid combat' easily equals 'get the loot' with no downsides, why is anyone doing anything else?

Because players want to play the characters they want and I want a system that doesn't punish that mentality. The Warrior being worse than a Rogue isn't nearly the gap as Wizard is above them (Let alone Face but that's a whole other thread and it hasn't yet come up as an issue unless I was playing the Face in that other system)

Okay, hang on. I went back and reread your post. I think you were saying you hate having 'anti-magic' everywhere. But... that's the one thing limiting a mage. If you strip that from a campaign you are saying "Mages are supreme, there is no reason to play anything other than a Jedi Mage".

But how much should it limit them? A warrior fights, a rogue pilfers, a wizard casts. How often should I have Magic Resistance 10 [20] or DR (Only Warrior PC -80%) [20]? Where should I place No Mana Zones or "Everything weighs ten times as much" zones? Not having them shows that magic is too good, but giving any important NPC and location those makes the character useless. How do I determine when I hose a character?

With something like DR 10 (say, nice heavy plate mail), I know the effect on the party. The warrior might try to just hack through it or use it against them (by tripping them and letting the weight hold them down), the rogue will look for chinks or into disarming, the wizard and face will use abilities making the assumption that the target is effectively immune to damage. It affects the whole party but it affects the one who can overcome it less. Similar to a darkness penalty about affects everyone the same and each would come up with different solutions.

Read Fumble, Command, and Turnblade. They are the Blocking spells meant to be cast on an enemy so they have [drumroll] a resistance!

When Timeslip was written the author probably didn't think someone would cast it on an enemy because at their core Blocking spells are defenses, equal to Dodge, Block, and Parry and you would be hard pressed to find ways to Dodge, Block, or Parry for enemy and turn it to your advantage. So if you are routinely doing this you are breaking the spirit of the rules.

Huh. Fumble is odd. I love the spell, but it more reads as a regular spell you use during their turn instead of a Blocking spell. But the reason why I use Timeslip is that I'm setting up a legitimate situation; One of my allies is attacking them without holding back (maybe even in an intentionally lethal way, such as targeting the vitals or neck). I now protect them with the spell from that attack. Then, later and separate from the attack, an ally happens to take an action that takes them out of the battle. The enemy doesn't even have to know the attack is coming; I've seen a party do that exact set up to sneak up and take care of guards without noise or killing.

I do accept it's not the intention and cheese, but then what is the correct set up? Does the target know I'm casting a spell that will protect them? If they know it's being cast, do they know it's not the court wizard protecting them from an enemy attack? Do they now know they are being attacked and can defend themselves?

"Hey, the Mage got us free lunch, let's blow this dungeon and go spend our reward in the local tavern! Huzzah!"

Not seeing the issue, unless the non-mages are sore they aren't doing the loot grabbing? In which case why aren't they playing mages?

I am going to point out something I learned from another thread going on about "balance": The wizard is far more capable than I think they should be BUT this isn't an issue as a whole. The wizard usually covers three bases most players find boring and like being there; Knowledge gathering (this is the least boring), Healing, Buffing. All those notes I made about how the wizard is far too good? That same wizard is using them to maximum value by applying them to the party.

But then it creates other issues; I don't actually know how capable any character in the party will be (will the wizard give extra ST, use Lockmaster to help the rogue save time with a handful of locks, heal some wounds, end up spending too much and not be able to do anything, something else?) and separating the wizard from the others (largely by accident or by player choice, not the GM's) makes it hard to determine how strong any encounter (not even just combat) should be, and adding in anti-magic will make it's problems more obvious ("No mana zone? Boss is actually going to be weak.")

If a college is routinely giving your game problems, then excise it whole. In this case, the Gate college tends to be problematic, that's why DF excised it almost completely.

I don't think any college or even spell has given routine issues, rather that the issues come up right when they would be most apparent.

Unless said Wizard is heavy in the Mind magic, I really doubt it. Even invisibility only gets you so far.

Flight, Teleport, Delay (e.g. Ethereal Body), Cloud-Vaulting, Body of Anything (but Air and Wind are most appropriate, especially since Air can be free to maintain and might already just be up), etc. That's just a small list of spells to avoid the combat, not to win it. And this hypothetical wizard would most likely have one or two spells from every college to help prepare for unforeseen situations such as "suddenly fighting a warrior".

That mage went half the campaign with no other spells because he wasn't allowed to buy them. His primary skill for a long time was Spear (ignoring the time he burned down 'half' the city).

Well, that's a significant point right there, not being allowed to buy more. (Also, are you trying to point out that this wizard is too good with merely eight very useful spells?)

So the three books stuffed with Magic Items weren't a clue in any way? The entire Enchantment college? A whole section in Magic discussing magic items? The fact that a mage's pay scale is based around cottage level industrial enchanting?

If that's the intention that magic is something you can just get off-the-shelf, then I take it back. But looking through things just as quick thing, most magic items still seem out of range for any adventurer with below Wealthy pay (Very Wealthy if settled). Mind, if items are even more commonplace, then it's almost a bad idea to be a wizard since you can just buy spells with money then (which is a warning GMs have about high tech directly buying skills with money).

If you give awesome stuff to only one Character type, you are saying "Everyone should play this awesome Character type".

I agree, which is why I want to figure out what it is about this system that either needs to be changed or explained so I realize what I'm wrong about.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Casting the spell is not at all the same thing as hitting with the spell.

That's true but once again is a strange effect of Missile spells and not Regular or Long ranged spells.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Sorry, I couldn't figure out what you meant before, you mean Lend Vitality that cost HP instead of FP?

Either a single spell or a meta spell that changes healing spells, but either way whatever it is you are curing (e.g. Awaken, Neutralize Poison, Youth) you take onto yourself as the cost instead of spending FP. Maybe each spell needs it's own "empathic" version? I don't know.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That what a GM is for. Not seeing the issue here.

But if I'm the GM, I don't have any guidelines for that. When is it correct to hose a single character?

No spells go from "worthless to broken" at skill 20. They go from "cast a little" to "cast all the time". That's it. So if you think a spell is terrible at "cast all the time" don't allow it.

That is a gigantic jump in usefulness, which was pointed out earlier in the thread. Just glancing at the table of spells, Alter Voice both has fantastic uses and can give +2 to reactions. With the build to have an IQM of 23, you get the major benefit of IQ19 and can now buy that above effect basically permanently for 1pt, in addition to a few Body Spells (just cast them in the morning), Missile Shield, Bladeturning, Master, even Create Fire is enough to do a ton of (non combat) damage if free (such as that mage except free and thus can run from point to point mostly unhindered).

If no one has ever used a spell in a 'broken' fashion why are you worried about it?

A) They aren't using a spell, so I'll think I'll have to make it better so they will and thus
B) At some point someone will use it, maybe a lot, without it necessarily being obvious how to unbreak it. This would especially suck if the character concept was based around it (which is often how it happens)

But it was made as a spell way back when and as 4e is largely a 3e port with some edits, it stayed.

Partly my point; it's obvious Magic needs work to even get to a playable point because it doesn't start there, but since there's not really another similar system I'm not sure what is needed to get it there.

[scc]

You limit mages by limiting what spells they can cast

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Kax

Share Vitality is exactly the spell you are talking about.

Thank you! I looked for it to suggest it and somehow skimmed right over it!

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It's the nature of "wizards" in most roleplaying systems I've played and/or GM'd. Any pointers on how to avoid that would be fantastic.

You put in things to challenge or limit the wizard. Just as you do when you put an enemy in 10 DR plate armor to challenge the Fighter, or set a lock at -10 to skill to challenge the Thief. You set foes with good resistances or anti-magic obstacles to challenge and limit the Mage.

Because players want to play the characters they want and I want a system that doesn't punish that mentality.

Then why do you keep only rewarding the sneaky Rogue and Mage? You need to set treasure that can only be won through fighting, obstacles that can only be talked past, etc.

Don't put your big Fighter spotlight fight in an area that can be snuck past with no reason to go in and have that fight!

As I said previously sometimes it's a case of "If you want the treasure, those 20 orcs need to be killed because they are wearing it, so kill those dudes or go home empty handed".

But how much should it limit them?

How hard do you make it on the other Characters? You seem to have no problem with idea of throwing a heavy armor enemy to stymie and challenge the Fighter.

How often should I ...? Where should I ...? How do I ...?

As often as you like. Play with the knobs, you'll figure it out. Can't learn without making mistakes, just pay attention when you do.

Is the mage's Player getting frustrated that half the locks are all anti-magiced? That his mind magic is running up against hard Wills? Then tone it back a bit. is everyone else annoyed at the mage constantly spotlight hogging? Then dial it up a bit.

But the reason why I use Timeslip is that I'm setting up a legitimate situation...

No, you aren't. You're abusing the spirit of the rules.

I do accept it's not the intention and cheese, but then what is the correct set up?

You follow the spirit of the spell and cast it only on allies. Or you add a resistance to it and treat it in the manner you are using, an attack.

I don't actually know how capable any character in the party will be...

So?

Or rather, why not? You know what the possibilities are. Just set to them and adapt as needed (since it sounds like you aren't a proponent of Old School).

...and separating the wizard from the others (largely by accident or by player choice, not the GM's) makes it hard to determine how strong any encounter (not even just combat) should be...

So? They split the party, they suffer the consequences. I know it's a bit Old School, but sometimes there need to be consequences. Unpleasant ones.

...and adding in anti-magic will make it's problems more obvious ("No mana zone? Boss is actually going to be weak.")

Why is the Boss going to be weak? That's usually when one of my old time Players would have gotten the most nervous. Lack of magical support should things go sideways.

And this hypothetical wizard would most likely have one or two spells from every college to help prepare for unforeseen situations such as "suddenly fighting a warrior".

I've yet to see a mage made with one or two spells from every college, especially as the entry level spells in most colleges are weak. It pays to go deep in most colleges, not shallow.

Which is why most mages in my experience tend to be 'specialists' (focused in on 3-4 primary colleges) and not pure generalists.

Well, that's a significant point right there, not being allowed to buy more.

Which was my point about a mage with only a few weak spells is still worth it. Now yes, I strongly suspected that the apprentice would eventually be inducted into the Wizard's Guild, and eventually allowed to learn more spells. It could have gone awry and not happened, but baring catastrophic stupidity on my part it was unlikely.

(Also, are you trying to point out that this wizard is too good with merely eight very useful spells?)

4 Seek* and 4 Creates are not 'very useful' spells. They have their uses, but man... there are far, far, far better.


* Even at the outset the GM said "Are you sure you want the Seeks and not the Purifys where you can take them?" Only used one of those Seek spells (Seek Air) in game. And it was iffy as to whether it was actually useful or not when I used it.

If that's the intention that magic is something you can just get off-the-shelf, then I take it back.

It can be. In my mind the intention in Fantasy is that by the time your Wizard is 'getting' out of hand with his magic, the Fighter should have a decentish sword (+1-2 Puisant, Shatterproof, maybe Accuracy on it, maybe Penetrating instead), +1 Fortified armor. The Thief should be sporting some Dark Vision magic item, probably Mage Stealth, or maybe something to enhance his killing. At the minimums.

If you let the Players pick stuff by buying it, you'll likely find really weird items like the Pot of Cooking and Anti-Vermin tents of Cool and Heat.

But looking through things just as quick thing, most magic items still seem out of range for any adventurer with below Wealthy pay (Very Wealthy if settled).

Is there a reason you're worried about job tables and not just heaping treasure at their sandaled feet?

I agree, which is why I want to figure out what it is about this system that either needs to be changed or explained so I realize what I'm wrong about.

The problem is (as far as I can see?):

1 - Setting rewards where being sneaky is out rewarding being a thug. This leaves you Warrior feeling unnecessary (maybe?).

2 - Not enough challenge on the Wizard. Low Mana areas are natures way of saying "Slow the mage's roll", not stop it. A few locks he can't just magic away, a few walls he can't pas through, enemies he can't invisible past. These make nice challenges for the other Characters to deal with. (Even if he's still doing his part by buffing them!)

3 - Give the non-Wizards some magic items. Magic is the Force and it's not cool if only the Jedi get to play with it.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

But if I'm the GM, I don't have any guidelines for that. When is it correct to hose a single character?

Enough that you see the gleam of satisfaction in their eye when they overcome the hosing, or the grit in their teeth that says "Next time I'll be ready", but not the dejected look of defeat and despair that leaves them not wanting to play.

It's a rough balance. I know I screw it up all the time.

That is a gigantic jump in usefulness...

Yeah... but that's the mage's 'sword'. The Warrior 'tirelessly' swings his axe all day killing, the mage casts spells. It's okay that they use spells.

A) They aren't using a spell, so I'll think I'll have to make it better so they will and thus

Not a problem. Not every tool has a use. Don't worry about it.

B) At some point someone will use it, maybe a lot, without it necessarily being obvious how to unbreak it. This would especially suck if the character concept was based around it (which is often how it happens)

The moment someone bases a Character concept around a spell it sends up red flags.

Unless it's a Charm, and even then. Red Flags.

Partly my point; it's obvious Magic needs work to even get to a playable point because it doesn't start there, but since there's not really another similar system I'm not sure what is needed to get it there.

It is playable. it's been playable for thirty plus years. You've played it just fine.

My recommendation, for your next campaign grab Pyramid 3-60 Dungeon Fantasy III for the Wizardry Refined article. It rewrites the prereq chains and changes some spells to better fit the Dungeon Fantasy theme... I think using that strictly for a campaign (or even a handful of adventures) might give you ideas on how to make adjustments of your own to beat Magic into a shape you prefer.

I also think you should try running an Old School game. Set an arbitrary minimum numbers of games (like 10 or so) so your Players don't just argue you out of it the first time a Character dies. you might like it. Your Players might like it. And even if you all hate it, you'll likely come away having learned something about how to balance your games.

Nothing teaches 'balance' like brutally unbalanced Character TPKs.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Considered that. Decided not to bother. Magery as I see it is the brute force you have to bring to bear. Skill is the finesse.

Do you have a copy of GURPS: Myth? They had rules to allow mages that could gain extra levels of Magery, recharge at vast speed, have large amounts of extra fatigue, and cast 38 die fireballs.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

And what other skills are now being covered under these Wildcards? And if there are none, then they are pointless (except to suck up points) as I spent only 2 points in those skills and you propse to spend 6.

"Wildcard skills include and replace all specific skills within their area." (sic) Basic Set 175.

I was just using the skills presented; Wildcard skills by their very nature cover every skill under that category. If you think a Wildcard skills has a limited skill set you are a) somehow setting up the skill wrong or b) you don't understand what skills the Wildcard skill covers,

Megadungeon Knowledge! (11): eliminates 5 presented skills

Replaces Archaeology (Megadungeon), Architecture (Megadungeon), Area Knowledge (Megadungeon), Hidden Lore (Megadungeon), History (Megadungeon), Survival (Megadungeon), and everything else Megadungeon related.

Heck if there was some kind of overall administration to the Megadungeon things like Administration (Megadungeon) are possible. Moreover, it would eliminate penalties like the -2 for Camouflage (Megadungeon). That is just the tip of what something like Megadungeon Knowledge! can do.


Connoisseur! (11): eliminates 4 presented skills

Replaces Connoisseur (Alcohol), Connoisseur (Art), Connoisseur (Coinage), Connoisseur (Gems/Jewelry), Connoisseur (Magical Items), and every other form of Connoisseur in the game such as Dance, Fashion, Literature, Music, Wine, and what ever else fits under "art and luxury items".

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Yeah, I really have to wonder about having more than 50 skills (or having more than 100 points in skills). Without any game mechanics to reward experience or training, it is always more affordable to raise DX or IQ than to raise five related skills from 4 points to 8 points, to raise ten related skills from 2 points to 4 points, or to raise twenty related skills from 1 point to 2 points. Even if you have 50 skills at 1 point, it makes much more sense to purchase DX or IQ than to improve them any further (which is why I advocate giving mechanical bonuses for points invested in individual skills and individual techniques).

There are mechanical benefits to having 1 point in a skill vs. 0 points and a high stat. Also, that first point buys a very large jump in capability, one that if you bought it by sinking points into the underlying stat (which will be more efficient if you've many skills you want, of course) you will probably have waited a very long time for.

This brings up why the PCs in my campaign have tons of points in skills - they want a decent level in the skill 'right now', so they drop a point into it. Also, they want to actually have the skill, so they can default off it, and more recently so they can work a job using it.