Making Skills Matter Again

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Aren't they? The only restriction is that the group be thematically related (GM's call).

RAW, they aren't things you learn, and they have weird secondary bonuses such as reaction modifiers.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Aren't they? The only restriction is that the group be thematically related (GM's call). If someone wants to be good at sword, knife, throwing (knife), and fast-draw (sword), I would have no problem with a Lengthy Blades Talent aiding all of these skills.

Talent has baggage about being "a natural aptitude for...skills."

It's probably possible to reframe most or all of the associated benefits as equally befitting an acquired aptitude for the skills, though.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by tbone

What it's unfortunately not so good at is the multi-skill specialist with several high-level skills based on plain old experience/training in the skills, not talents or general ability.

A fix for this, which I'm warming to with experience, is to allow characters to buy Talents in a group of skills that they've used a lot. Yes, it breaks the idea that Talents are "inborn aptitude," but it doesn't seem to break anything else.

Allowing it for "Talent-like advantages," such as Charisma or Voice, probably works too, but I have less experience with that.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by johndallman

A fix for this, which I'm warming to with experience, is to allow characters to buy Talents in a group of skills that they've used a lot. Yes, it breaks the idea that Talents are "inborn aptitude," but it doesn't seem to break anything else.

Back to School, p. 10, mentions this as an option that a GM could allow, though noting that it's hard to justify in a realistic campaign. It suggests that superscience educational technology might confer a Talent.

That same page also has rules for "point conversion," turning points in a group of skills into points in a Talent that covers them, with requirements for how many different skills you have to have points in.

[AlexanderHowl]

Or, alternatively, you can just increase DX. That is always my problem with Talents, a 15 CP Talent is usually a lot less cost effective than just increasing DX or IQ. Multiple Talents are just useless unless they stack, like Allure and Musical Ability for Singing, in which you end up with someone with Singing-24 if they also have HT 12 and Voice.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Back to School, p. 10, mentions this as an option that a GM could allow, though noting that it's hard to justify in a realistic campaign.

Once again getting back to the problem that it's deprecating something that should be absolutely standard and unexceptional.

[Ulzgoroth]

A nice benefit of bundling your skill points into talent instead of attributes is that that way they don't get yanked out from under you if you have to roll the skill based on a different attribute.

[dataweaver]

There's always “Talents as Training” from Power-Ups 3: Talents (pp.25–26). It depends on a suitable Template existing in the setting; but it allows you increase the cost-effectiveness of what that Template is designed to do considerably.