Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 1838827)

Trying to make the "equipment-operation skill" classification simultaneously cover skills for operating actual equipment and skills that involve the mental manipulation of models seems to eliminate any discriminatory power it could have.

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman (Post 1838619)

By RAW, "Any failure means you fall." I think it's a common house-rule that failure means no progress and only critical failures result in falls.

I have a few questions about climbing.

How often do people here call for rolls and how do you assess fatigue, for climbs using the "Combat" column? The Basic Set says at least one FP, or double the FP cost determined by the adventure or GM. But it doesn't give any other guidance.

'Regular' climbs call for rolls every 5 minutes. But 5 minutes seems too a long a time frame to be meaningful for 'Combat' climbs. Also, since the movement is usually about 3 times faster on the 'Combat' column, using the same five-minute climb would let you get 3 times as far with the same success rate by climbing faster, which logically should penalize your success. However calling for a roll every second someone is climbing in 'Combat' mode doesn't make sense either, and would result an way to many falls. Dividing the time between rolls by three (rolls every 100 seconds) would make the distance covered between rolls the same in most cases. This is still too long to track or be meaningful in actual combat, but at least it removes the unintended benefit.

Does extra-effort work for climbing? It seems like using the 'Combat' column covers going faster but spending FP to do it, potentially at much lower cost than extra-effort - tripling speed, rather than increasing it by 5%. You could argue that the 'Combat' column is only available in actual combat situations or when fright checks or self-control rolls for appropriate disadvantages are failed, that would leave some space for extra-effort to be useful in other situations.

By the chart, Basic Move doesn't impact climbing speed at all. Should it, and by how much? Realistically do you think someone who can run twice as fast as an average person could climb any faster over 5 minutes? Or does a fast climber need to take "Enhanced Move (Climbing)"

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1838818)

Are there any IQ based skills that aren't TL in at least some degree?

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1838835)

I spent a decade in theoretical physics hearing that . . . "Oh, theory. Well that isn't the same science as actually doing experiments." No, it's exactly the same science – you can't separate the two. That's my point here; the tools of theory and experiment certainly differ, but they're all part of what GURPS would call the same science skill. At most, they differ by a familiarity penalty.

Originally Posted by roguebfl (Post 1838846)

For starters Acting, and not being /TL animal IQ 1-5 can use it too.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1838844)

I'm slightly disappointed we went on a tangent of tools-and-sciences in a thread about Climbing while we still have such a curious bunch of questions to sort out:

Originally Posted by Kromm (Post 1830443)

Many fairly generic perks from GURPS Power-Ups 2 could be adapted to the cause:

• Attribute Substitution, notably "Climbing based on Per" for characters who are good at finding safer paths.
• Better (Gear) for expensive or cutting-edge climbing equipment.
• Compact Frame for negotiating narrow chimneys.
• Equipment Bond for any piece of climbing gear, from a trusty rope to a fancy piolet.
• Focused (Task) for the Climbing skill, usually to the detriment of Per rolls to spot dangers such as ice weasels.
• No Nuisance Rolls for those with Climbing at 16+ who want to avoid rolls for unchallenging climbs.
• Purpose, if it's something like "Climb this specific mountain" and the player is willing to spend the point on it.
• Skill Adaptation such as "Mountain climbing defaults to Survival (Mountain)," which isn't useful for general climbing.
• Standard Operating Procedures related to things like always securing a safety line.

Techniques are trickier, because GURPS doesn't split up climbing tasks all that much. Still, you might find these ones implied by GURPS Action 3 to be of some use:

• Rapelling
• Rope Up
• Scaling

Running Climb, Skidding, Sliding, and Spinning are more marginal, but I could see them coming into play.

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman (Post 1838619)

'Regular' climbs call for rolls every 5 minutes. But 5 minutes seems too a long a time frame to be meaningful for 'Combat' climbs. Also, since the movement is usually about 3 times faster on the 'Combat' column, using the same five-minute climb would let you get 3 times as far with the same success rate by climbing faster, which logically should penalize your success. However calling for a roll every second someone is climbing in 'Combat' mode doesn't make sense either, and would result an way to many falls. Dividing the time between rolls by three (rolls every 100 seconds) would make the distance covered between rolls the same in most cases. This is still too long to track or be meaningful in actual combat, but at least it removes the unintended benefit.

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman (Post 1838619)

Does extra-effort work for climbing? It seems like using the 'Combat' column covers going faster but spending FP to do it, potentially at much lower cost than extra-effort - tripling speed, rather than increasing it by 5%. You could argue that the 'Combat' column is only available in actual combat situations or when fright checks or self-control rolls for appropriate disadvantages are failed, that would leave some space for extra-effort to be useful in other situations.

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman (Post 1838619)

By the chart, Basic Move doesn't impact climbing speed at all. Should it, and by how much? Realistically do you think someone who can run twice as fast as an average person could climb any faster over 5 minutes? Or does a fast climber need to take "Enhanced Move (Climbing)"

Originally Posted by Flyndaran (Post 1839156)

If only to reduce otherwise inevitable deaths, I think climbing failures should be verified before falls. Unless PCs ignore inherent dangers of lacking safety gear and taking their time.