Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

Do they invite over-use? Are they intruding on the realm of Techniques? Are they too underpriced/overpowered? Are they munchkinny? Do they lead to a patchwork rules-set rather than a system?

Any views?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Perks can sure be overused, but as long as they are carefully designed to be comparable and compatible with existing, vetted ones, I don't have a problem with them. Imbuements are much more of an issue for me. Perhaps there's something polarizing about Power-Ups?

The real threat is from rhetorical questions *heh*

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Danger to GURPS?
1. No. As with all RPGS GMs reserve the right to say NO when needed. The only true dangers to gurps are lost dice and broken pencils :)

Do they invite overuse?
2. To the munchkins among us, everything is an opportunity for exploitation. If it makes you fell better put the Quirk Cap of 5 on them.

Underpriced/Overpowered? Munchkinny?
3. The boundaries of perks need to be watched vigillantly, but most of the perks and Ideas for perks seem fairly well balanced. At first glance I thought strongbow was overpowered, but then I remembered its only ONE type of weapon, a missle weapon, and you have to spend 9 more points to get the full effect.

Patchwork Rules?
4. THe devil is always in the Details. These are not patchwork rules because well designed perks simply fill in the gaps for charachter style and player type. Designed properly they will never be able to overtake or replace the Larger Ads and Skills.

Nymdok

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I really love perks just because they can bend the rules a little bit if it is not really a big power difference.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

They're mostly just tools. As long as the GM remembers to enforce their usefulness as related to their point cost, they shouldn't be a problem. Of course, it helps if you limit them as per Perks in Martial Arts: 1 Perk per 10 points of underlying Style. Extrapolate that to, say per 10 points of Power that allows the Perk or, as Nymdok suggests, cap them at 5 for non-Power/Style-related Perks.

In general, the real purpose of Perks is to add flavor, to tweak the character design a bit without charging full price. With some GM guidance, this shouldn't be a problem.

What might be more useful to this discussion would be a list of Perks that you find abusive or excessive or munchkinny. Wotcha got?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

PU2: Perks suggests allowing 1 Perk for every 25 starting character points excluding racial Perks (see page 3). Limiting it to 5 (as a balance to Quirks) isn't a bad idea either if they bother you.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

No more than skills were for 3e. At some point we'll presumably be doing an Eradicate Which Perks thread for hypothetical 5e discussions analogous to old the Eradicate Which Skills thread. And sure they are intruding on Techniques. Is that a problem?. The real problem is more that GURPS was built skills first, then a mix of skills and advantages added piecemeal, then techniques, then perks added piecemeal, instead of all at once. This has left a number of legacy residues of stuff in less than ideal categories - Fast Draw is probably a technique, several required specializations with generous interdefaults are probably Skill Adaptation perks, Kicking probably ought to be a skill etc. These are sometimes mildly irritating, but hardly rise to the level of threats.

Sure do. This is probably an unavoidable feature of any game system than has continuing support involving new rules (i.e. the part that sells supplements most effectively) though. Post-Compedium GURPS does a better job of keeping them integrated than most, largely I suspect through the blessings of Kromm.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I can't find much to add...

IMHO many Perks should be nerfed (or made more costly, or removed completely) AND characters should be allowed to choose them freely.

Having overpowered Perks BUT limiting how many a character can buy (according to his "class" or style) is *very* D&D-esque.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

True. Though nobody took me up on discussing *which ones* are overpowered last time. I think there are a dozen or so, but most of them are fine.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Dont know that any are "overpowered"

I am running 2 PCs at this point

One has Teamwork and Sartorial Integrity (dont hurt the suit man)

other has Teamwork and Honest Face.

Nice enough, Teamwork might Straddle the line (oj/overpowered) but I could easily have lived without either.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I can't think of any that are overpowered OTTOMH, though I suppose I could find a few if I looked through Power-Ups 2. Which ones jump out at you?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I'm a fan of limiting combat-related perks to style limitations and related skills. For instance in High Tech I think the gun-related perks were limited to 1 perk to X points spent in style/firearm related skills. This means that only 'masters' or at least very experienced PCs can get a large number of perks.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I very much agree with that. If they need to be class- or experience- or maximum-number limited, it suggests to me that they are a departure from the ICWIC philosophy.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

The ones that seem like possible problems are Improvised Weapons, Pistol Fist, Power Grappling, Intuitive Repairman, Autotrance, Focused (Task), Extended Hearing, Influence Shticks, Attribute Substitution, Dabbler, Base, Charms, Rest in Pieces, Extra Option, Rules Exemption, Area Spell Mastery, Huge Subjects, Improvised Items, Improvised Magic, Limited Energy Reserve, Mana Compensation, Psychic Guidance, Shortcut to Power, Spell Bond and Wizardly Dabbler.

Some of them are iffy more because they invade the territory of existing stuff more than because the price is way off, and most are OK at least under some circumstances.

I suppose the worse of them are:
Attribute Substitution - for the internal contradiction, it has to apply to rolls where the GM thinks shifting the attribute makes sense, but not enough sense to do it for everybody. It's like its a refugee from the 3e rules, where shifting attribute bases wasn't a core rule.
Base - it *needs* a link to wealth, and a property nobody can link to you is clearly more plausible in some settings than others
Charms and Shortcuts to Power - spells really are partly balanced by prerequisite chain, which is after all why you can use prerequisite counts for improvised magic and the results aren't too silly. I don't necessarily agree with the prerequisite chains or using their counts for anything, but there are too many spells that totally undercut advantages if you can get them even on a somewhat unreliable basis for 3 points (spell skill, Charm and one spell Magery 0 to cast them). And aren't these the same Perk?
Area Spell Mastery - Partial areas make me nervous enough in the first place. I'd feel better about if you had to pay the cost you would for ending the spell for each change.
Mana Compensation - are you kidding!? Mana Enhancer is bad enough.

Extra Option and Rules Exemption are clearly abusable if you read too much into them, but also pretty clearly more in the nature of discussions of how to invent new ones than finished Perks. Improvised Magic is an example of an Extra Option Perk that probably shouldn't be allowed, since it's quite a signficant advantage to have that option switched on for you and not for everybody.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I've always agreed to the whole Prerequisites doesn't balance spells idea, but this got me thinking. A non-mage-type character who normally doesn't use a lot of FP could get a big advantage by picking one useful high-prequiste spell like Missile Shield and get it up to a reasonable level far to easily.

When fighters can get ranged-weapon-proof for just a handful of points... chances are they will be quite a bit better than their points would indicate.
...unless all foes 'for some reason' never attacks him with ranged weapons after the PC buys the trait. Unless it is with depleted Necronium arrows. Right.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Depends on your gaming group's "perk culture". I like to use perks like Photogenic (+3 bonus to Photography skill if you want him to look good in a photo, -3 if you want him to look bad) and Impressive Scar (+1 reaction bonus with war veterans). These are, IMO, marginal enough to justify the minimal cost. They set the overall power level and it rubs off to new players who are shopping for Perks.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I agree. A dusting of "not-quite-worth-the-one-point" quirks fills out a setting and gives a sense of uniqueness to characters. Where I try to draw the line is when Perks are being used to shortcut the system, in place of full-fledged advantages, skills, talents, or techniques. The choice to buy a quirk should never feel forced, but should be a choice of "how do I make this character unique among all the other fighters/mages/martial artists who are similar?" Perks I've offered in the past include things like Looks good in uniform, Captain of a starship, True believer, Liked by cats, and so on.

My problem is not with the abundance of Perks, but making sure their power level is capped.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I really like the idea of Perks for flavoring a PC, but 1 per 25 points seems like overkill. I've cut players down to 1 per 100 points--just one or two per PC to fill in the cracks--not 6+ to design to concept.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

The ones that worry me the most are the ones that give +1 to a skill (like Weapon Bond, for example). It high skill levels, the PC gets another pip on the dice for just 1 point when it should have cost significantly more to raise the skill level.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Given that boosting the skill by 4 with gadget limitations; Theif must win Quick contest of ST -30%, breakable (DR 3-5) -15%, possibly with Machine -5% and the Unique -25% limitation, total -75%... works out to the same (or similiar for slightly different gear) cost, it probably isn't as bad as it seems.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Although Weapon Bond has some draw backs. IE it is Weapon Specific cant switch it to the pizzer sword you just found/scraped up the cash for. It is just for the Fine (VF mebbe) sword you started with. If people wait til later in character development when they get what they expect to be their "uber weapon"...read the perk. By definition Id rule that it take a while to acquire...YMMV but the language on it is more or less explicit (that kind of Bond doesnt develop overnight.)

So it takes time

and/or you may have a few older Weapon Bond points that are now effectively wastage.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

All I'll say on Weapon Bond is that "+1 to skill with one weapon in the whole universe" is self-evidently less useful than "+1 to skill with every weapon ever made in one broad class," and in fact represents the most severe possible limitation on the latter case. That's canonically -80%, so Weapon Bond is worth 0.8 point; thus, 1 point a bit of a ***, not a bargain. Weapon Bond is only a bargain in campaigns where the PCs never lose or willingly replace their weapons, and where they can get away with using one weapon for everything from campaign start to campaign finish. In more sensible campaigns, it's entirely balanced.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

FREX the only time I have used weapon bond was for a priest. I wrote him up under 1st ed and when he started the party had a weapons locker, in it were 6 broadswords. I didnt have one. I worshipped the God of Mercinary Warriors in effect. I laid the 6 of them out on the deck and prayed over them for 1-2 hours asking Upuaut (GOD) to "pick me a good one."

I got up and I had a new sword (Fine +1 dam).

I carried that sword every two weeks from 1988 to 1997. I had a million chances to replace it and at times the ransom of small kingdoms to do it with.
However if you have asked your god to pick you a winner how do you gracefully disagree with him later?

When MA came out with weapon bond my GM used be as the EXAMPLE of how he thought it would work. Needless to say I took it although I didnt really need the difference between 20 and 21 that much. (High Defense types are great fodder for Ex Fireball).

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Well, I can't argue with the math. My initial hesitation in using Perks was more of a min-maxing vs. rounded character design notion. I feel that too many Perks on a character sheet steals from more creative (and by that I mean storytelling, not ingenious ways to not get dead) character building to making the character just a bunch of "one-ups."

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I saw a few magic related perks mentioned that i had never heard of - mana compensation, wizardly dabbler and spell bond for example. I don't recall seeing these in Magic or Power Ups: Perks. Are they in Thaumatology maybe?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Thaumatology: Magical Styles would be the source.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Personally I'm a big fan of Perks... especialy for racial templates. I think they are a great boon for 4e, allowing characters to be more fully realized than ever before.

Can they be abused... well, everything in Gurps can be abused, if that's the player's goal and the GM is unattentive or inexperienced. But it's kind of like Personal Liberty vs. Big Brother... I'll always choose the "system" that grants me liberty... if a couple of munchkins get through... well that's the price we have to pay, but the alternative is unthinkable.

In otherwords, I'm all for character options... and Perks is a great option IMO... The GM will just have to pay attention to character design... but that's not new at all.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

If anyone at SJ is wondering whether the bandwidth costs of these forums are worth it, let it be known that this post pretty much forced me to part with $8 to buy a supplement i hadn't even heard of 30 minutes ago. Thanks Ulz!

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Yeah, I have to admit that all in all Perks are pretty cool, and they are a 4e mechanic I have adopted into my 3e universe. . .

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

And my dual pistol wielding gunslinger had to purchase it twice... one for each pistol.

I find perks in general let you create a very specific niche character flavour without really creating any kind of realistic imbalance. Several perks are actually incredibly limited versions of lower-priced advantages.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Perks also add color and genre conventions to a game.

Masked and other Schticks are good for superheroes who just put on the mask (glasses, hat) and aren't the same person to others despite only changing one clothing item. Sartorial integrity is also great.

Cross-Trained is a good way to say, look, my PC is good at Driving any car (or other specialty) without spending 24 points on Driving. For folks like action heroes, it works nicely.

Basically, perks do for GURPS 4e what the 'up to the challenge' advantage S. John Ross suggested using in Black Ops would have done: give PCs some quick, small cheat to replace a gargantuan unwieldy list of skills and techniques. This gives one more time to game and more space for characterization.

The RAW for perks, particularly combat perks, ensures that few PCs will have them who don't invest a little effort in the field. Thus, if used wisely, they are a nice addition to the system.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

While I briefly mentioned it before, Perks are also the perfect choice to give Racial templates "life". Transform flat "mechanical" driven race write-ups into something that has it's "flavor text" written in the stat write-up and on the character sheet.

Perks (as well as quirks... especially the personality quirks... I have the tables in uplift memorized) add that final little garnish that complete a race, and add depth to their evolution... be it social, physical, psychological or otherwise.

So... I love Perks... and anyone who hasn't purchased "Power Ups 2: Perks" should definately check it out... (then click purchase).

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Assuming from your other post that you're talking about Thaumatology: Magical Styles... it might be too late for you, but you'll need Thaumatology (the big one) to make sense of several of those Perks. Not the majority, mostly the Extra Option variants, but having Thaumatology definitely helps. Hope you weren't disappointed!

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I don't think you can argue with the math of any of the "problem" perks. All of them are highly specific. Consider the Charm perks that let you get a spell without prerequisites. Several people argue that spells are "partially" balanced around prerequisites, and I think that "partially" is key. It's true that it took 17 spells for my Mage to get Great Gaes, but along the way I got totally sweet spells like Terror, Mental Stun, Sleep and Command. I could have spent a Perk point to take it as a Charm... which would have meant I spent 2 points to get what I could have gotten for 1 and some prerequisites. I find it hard to argue with that, especially given that any Cleric can just buy the spell he wants.

I think some people equate perk with "Useless ability that I'll certainly let you waste a point on." (Much like they equate Quirk with "Non-disadvantage that is flavorful that I'll give you a point for) They look at things like High Heeled Heroine and Extreme Sexual Dimorphism, Accessory or Honest Face and shrug: these don't have any more impact on the game than the GM really allows, and they seem more about allowing flavor than really making a difference.

They look at the actual abilities that do something, like Weapon Bond, Charm, Striking Surface or Power Grapple, and blanch. They've likely experienced a clever player making great use of that ability. No, Charm, Weapon Bond and Sure-Footed on their own aren't that great... until someone buys a Charm for Ice Slick, takes Sure Footed Ice, and forces his opponents to fight him on ice wherever he goes, thus ensuring he has +2 to +3 on his opponents for a mere 3 points. But that's not unbalanced, it's clever.

I certainly don't mind. Perks really are equivelant to 1 point advantages (1 point of night vision, for example) or heavily limited 5 point advantages (For example, Sensitive, Only Against Women, Once per Day)

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Trying to cut in on U's commission, eh? *tsk*

heh

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

S'just that my commission deal is for copies of Thaumatology itself... ;)

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Drunken Fighting always struck me as a bit abusable. It's basically +2 to all your combat skills with the preparation required and temporary disadvantage (-2 IQ) limitations. Those are serious limitations, but I still think it's more like a 5 point advantage than a perk. Cancelling the penalties for drunkeness to combat skills seems more reasonable for 1 point.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Except it works out to being a lot more than 3 points, because a non-mage needs to spend a zillion points to get magic spells up to a decent level. IQ13 and Magery 0 actually doesn't give you reliable spell casting for 1 point: try 8 points at least, preferably 12.

The Leprechaun thief in my DF game had to spend 31 points to Charm (Flying Carpet), Charm (Winged Knife), Magery 0, Flying Carpet-15, and Winged Knife-15, and that barely made him an effective combatant. It didn't feel overpowered to me.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

A +1 to a skill with any sort of limitations that will actually come up doesn't worry me much. A limitation that is at least as restrictive as a technique, already priced at 1 point per +1, should be fine. And worse case, well a point of skill costs 4 in the limit, and just about any limitation would work as a quirk, so maximum savings is 2 points, unless you are allowing lots of possibly stackable perks for the same skill. I do see proposals with higher bonuses as more iffy.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Limiting to 5 per player character is a bad idea, because it doesn't scale with campaign power level.

A limited derived from starting PC power level, which could be 1 Perk per 25 CPs or something like that, is a vastly superior solution.


For a DF or Action campaign, each character class could get a list of exclusive Perks that no other character class may choose. Or there could be a little overlap, e.g. between the Holy Warrior class and the Priest class.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Start a new thread on that subject. I doubt I have much to contribute but it'll be interesting to read.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Make sure you include CPs spent on Gunslinger in that equation. Maybe even Combat Reflexes too.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Doesn't it synergize really well with Signature Gear?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

So well that you'd be crazy not to take both together if you can.

Still, 2 points matches the cost of the first level of an Average Skill, so the combo of WB and SG are more 'efficient' for Hard weapons.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

SJ Games have at times been slow to update it, but this page can be used to keep track on the latest GURPS-pertinent e23 PDFs. Note that the new Pyramid magazine is not included, but everything else GURPS-specific is.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

But my thinking is you don't spend 1 CP Weapon Bond and 1 CP on Signature Gear. You spend a bunch of CPs on Signature Gear to buy yourself a Very Fine sword. Or VF submachine gun. Or similar.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

True, in which case, for one point you are buying a +1 to skill for the weapon you will virtually always use (if you choose wisely).

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Here is a list of some overpowered Perks (with a suggestion on how much they should cost, e.g., how much I charge for them in my campaign).

Most of those perks are combat-related simply because players are more likely to abuse "fighting" perks than "social" ones. I am including only "realistic" perks, not cinematic ones.

-WEAPON BOND: in the long run you MIGHT regret taking it, but in most campaigns is a very good deal - too good that MOST fighters will want it. You get +1 to combat skill for just 1 point (saving 3 points) and if you lose your weapon you can acquire a new Weapon Bond (and you're still saving 2 points). The fact that Weapon Bond costs like an extra level of skill with a -80% limitation is a moot point - you cannot add limitations to skill levels!
Suggested cost: 2 points

-MAGICAL WEAPON BOND: this is like Weapon Bond, without its drawbacks. Suggested cost: 3 points, or simply buy 1 extra level of skill and stop munchkinizing :)

-ARMOR FAMILIARITY: that's basically +1 to a weapon skill AND a further +1 for parrying purposes (since +2 to attack equals +1 to parry). If you choose that perk, you will ALWAYS benefit from it because you will wear armor and always be encumbered. "Only when armored" is NOT a significant limitation for "+1 to combat skill"... every sane GM will agree on that.
Note that Enhanced Parry costs 5 points, and Armor Familiarity gives you +1 to attacks *in addition* to EP benefits!
Suggested cost: 5 points

- CLINCH: this is not really overpowered but allowing it will dramatically change the way martial artist are designed (making grappling skills far less important)

- EXOTIC WEAPON TRAINING: this is a +1 to combat skill, always. It should simply be removed, or possibly it should cost 3 points. Even then, ALL fighters who use "exotic" weapons will choose it.

- FORM MASTERY: this perk basically allows you to get a +2 to parry when fighting with a Spear. It's like a limited, but more powerful, Enhanced Parry.
Suggested cost: 5 points.

- GRIP MASTERY: this perk basically grant you a +1 to parry (because you can "freely" assume a Defensive Grip and then relinquish it to attack).
Suggested cost: 4 or 5 points.

-SURE FOOTED and NAVAL TRAINING: those perks grant you a "full" +2 to skill (when fighting on specific terrains). If such terrains are quite common (e.g. a naval campaign, or a desert one) then ALL fighters will choose one of those perks. Suggested cost: 1 or 2 points.

-POWER GRAPPLING: it's difficult to evaluate how powerful it is... but it's clearly *extremely* valuable to high-ST characters. Probably it's worth more than 1 point.

-REACH MASTERY: this perk is VERY useful. Long weapons are *significantly* more powerful if you allow it (assuming you are using tactical maps). Suggested cost: 2/3 points.

- SHIELD WALL TRAINING: this perk is SO overpowered... it gives a +2 to combat skill (which is normally worth 8 points) for just 1 point, and has extra benefits!
Without it, no warrior will ever choose a Large shield. If it's allowed, no warrior will ever choose a shield other than a Large one. Suggested cost: 7 points; OR split it into two perks, "Sacrificial Block" for 1 point and "Large Shield training" for 6 points.

- SPECIAL SETUP (and RULES EXEMPTION, EXTRA OPTION and other similar perks): those perks are very easily abusable. They should cost more (2-5 points) and/or be strictly controlled by the GM.

- STRONGBOW: that's +2 to Striking Strenght for a single weapon skill, with the "fake" drawback it requires you to have the weapon skill at DX+2. The drawback is fake because every PC who bothers to buy this, will have a good weapon skill.
Suggested cost: 3 points

-STYLE FAMILIARITY: this perk grants significant benefits; notably a +1 to defenses against co-stylists (every time the enemy tries a deceptive/feint, that is, ALWAYS if he want to have a chance to hit a powerful PC). If the campaign does not feature DOZENS of styles, but just 4 or 5 styles, this perk is even more powerful.
Suggested cost: 2-3 points.

-TEAMWORK: this perk is so convoluted I don't think I would allow it. If I were to do so, I would charge 2 points for it. (note that it basically *includes* Sacrificial Parry and the "Sacrificial Block" portion of Shield Wall Training, only with the fuzzy "form up and then stay adjacent" requirement).

-TRADEMARK MOVE: not really overpowered, but it is particularly useful if you use more than one skill in your "full turn's worth of combat actions". Moreover, most players will try to buy Trademark Move for their most effective, favoured move... in that case, this "+1 to a single move" will look suspiciously similar to "+1 to skill".
Suggested cost: 2 points.

- EFFICIENT: this perk grants +2 to a skill whenever you are in a hurry. In most campaigns, technicians are ALWAYS in a hurry... and +2 to skill would cost 8 points.
Suggested cost: 2/3 points

- OFF-HAND WEAPON TRAINING: this perk makes Ambidexterity useless (unless your character makes a point of using different weapons and skills every time...). Moreover, in real life training to use your off-hand is difficult and time-consuming.
Suggested cost: 2 points

-SPECIAL EXERCISES: in some cases this perk is finely priced. For Damage Resistance, it's BADLY underpriced - because DR is outrageously cheap in low-tech and martial arts campaigns. Thus, if you really want to allow DR at the listed cost, Special Exercises for it should cost more - probably 3 or 4 points.

- PERFUME: this perk needs better explaining. What does "+1 on reaction rolls where a pleasant smell makes a difference" mean? A pleasant smell will ALWAYS be noticed when you talk with someone, so this means that PERFUME grants you +1 to reactions, like Attractive, only for 1 point?
In that case, suggested cost is 3 points.

=====

Please note that I like Perks and I agree they are a nice way to customize your character.
What I don't like is that some Perks are clearly more powerful than others... and that there is a fuzzy, complex, D&D-esque system to determine how many Perks you can acquire.

Moreover, newer GURPS books feature perks that are more and more overpowered - I am not commenting on GURPS Thaumatology: Magical Styles because MOST of its perks are badly underpriced (Limited Energy Reserve?).

I think Perks could work just fine in GURPS (and without weird requirements and limits) simply by increasing their costs.

And about Martial Arts styles: some people argue that a limit on how many Perks you can acquire is necessary to differentiate Martial Arts Styles. This is untrue.
If the GM wants to restrict some Perks to certain Martial Artists, he is free to do so - this doesn't change the fact that ALL Perks need to be balanced and fairly priced.

A limited accessibility of a given trait should not cause a discount of that trait's price - if it does, we're playing a "class" system like D&D, not a point system like GURPS.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

You realize that Armor Familiarity is bought by hit location, right? Mrugnak wears two suits of armor. I'd have to spend at least six points to prevent combat penalties, because I'd want to buy off layering over the torso and groin (general dx penalty) and both arms, and both hands. But I'd frankly want no DX penalties in any situation, so that's both legs, both feet, and neck for a total of 11 points.

Uh. Special Exercises doesn't give you the DR. You have to buy the DR at the listed point cost. It's just an unusual background tax.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Isn't that also the case with the Strongbow Perk, which Lupo also criticizes?

So far, it looks to me as if Lupo is failing to read the rules for the Perks that he accuses of being overpowered, and that's not a good sign...

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Where did you read that?
I own both Martial Arts and Power Ups 2: Perks and they say nothing of the sort... "For instance, two levels [of Armor Familiarity] mean you have no penalty up to Medium encumbrance, -1 at Heavy, and -2 at Extra-Heavy."

You are misreading it, Mrugnak would simply spend 1 point for each level of Encumbrance he wants to ignore.
E.g. if he fights at Medium Encumbrance, 2 levels of ARmor Familiarity would cancel the -2 to attacks and parries with Judo or Karate or Fencing (the Perk requires specialization).

That's why the Perk is unbalanced - if you houserule / nerf it, of course it woun't be unbalanced anymore.

I am fully aware of that. I wrote: "Thus, if you really want to allow DR at the listed cost, Special Exercises for it should cost more - probably 3 or 4 points."
Often people assume that every disagreement on GURPS rules comes from ignorance... this is a pity because it impedes discussion.

My point was that this "unusual background tax" is too low; it should be more than 1 point since Damage Resistance is very cheap, very powerful and ordinarily it's off-limits to humans.

In GURPS 3e Toughness costed 10 points and that was about right... so I think that Special Exercises (DR) should cost 3 or 4, ON TOP of Damage Resistance (3 points if it's Tough Skin).

What do you think of the other "underpriced" Perks?
Don't you think that Perks such as Limited Energy Reserve, Shield Wall Training and Grip Mastery are unbalanced?

You are mistaken. I am pretty sure I've read the rules correctly.
Of course some minor mistake is always possible, but - if they exist at all - they are NOT the ones you pointed out so far.

I would ask you to re-read what I wrote and check it with GURPS Martial Arts or GURPS Perks, before commenting on it...

The Strongbow Perk works *exactly* as I have described. It allows you to use stronger Bows (or Crossbows, in case of "Crossbow Finesse" perk). This +2 to Bow ST translates in a net +1 to damage.
That's why EACH and EVERY archer chooses this perk - because with just 1 point you get to increase the damage of your main weapon by 1.

It appears to me that some of the people who think Perks are fairly priced, in reality *do not know* how those Perks are supposed to work.
Therefore they imagine a different, fictional version of them, that fits better in their own vision of GURPS (being less powerful and therefore less unbalanced).
This looks like some sort of cognitive dissonance, like when people cannot possibly believe that somebody they know (or some institution they believe in) is responsible for questionable deeds...

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Upon re-reading, I think we're talking about two different things - and in my case, it's a trait that totally isn't Armor Familiarity.

I am apparently thinking about something that avoids the layered armor penalty. Armor Familiarity, upon rereading it, is for fencing and martial arts skills, which take an ENCUMBRANCE penalty - and the perk is for general encumbrance, not "armor". If you have a 60 lb backpack on, it works just as well.

I think the layering armor trait I'm thinking about is a "House" perk basically unrelated to this one.

Null conversation, sorry about that.

See, I think you're arguing about the wrong element here. If you think DR is too cheap, you think it's too cheap, and it's not the perk that bothers you, it's the "too cheap" thing it's opening up. Changing the perk doesn't fix the price of the DR - you're tinkering with the wrong part of the system for your problem.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

No. Strongbow doesn't let you buy ST.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Actually, you can. While Basic says that it would be a bad idea to regularly put modifiers on skills, it is an option (one which most GM's rightfully disallow).

Basic 102: The GM might even permit specific enhancements on certain skills, but this is difficult to justify unless the skill functions much as an advantage...

Basic 110: You can apply limitations to almost any trait (although as with enhancements, skills are normally off-limits).

Normally being the key word.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I find the general analysis in the latter half of Lupo's Post #48 very persuasive. While I too like perks, it seems to me that there's a looseness to their development and use that invites problems. I also think several of them should be built and costed as techniques rather than cheap 1 point powers. Off-hand weapon training is a good example -- it should be a -4 technique for the weapon in question, not a perk.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I shan't quote the ones I agree with or can't really offer anything extra to say...

I'd say 'only when armoured' is a significant limitation to Judo and Karate, since one of the main benefits of unarmed combat skills is that they don't need equipment. Combined with Fencing weapons, it gets a bit more dubious.

That's only really a problem is exotic weapons are otherwise better than normal weapons. Looking at the trident and the three-part-staff, I'm not convinced that they really are all that great even after you eliminate the skill penalty.

Assuming you are only facing one opponent, who can't do a 'run around' attack and you aren't using a shield or second weapon. Really, there are rather limited number of builds which get full use out of this one.

Well, yes. Taking abilities which are only useful in a particular environment is quite good if the campaign is restricted to that environment.

I get the impression that it was basically a buff to that skill, because it was considered underpowered. I'm almost suprised that there wasn't something similar for Two-Handed-Axe/Mace.

It's rather balanced by the fact that they will get the same bonus against you, isn't it?

I don't think this stacks with actually being freshly washed and perfumed. In a situation where you are expected to smell good (i.e. a normal social gathering) it wouldn't give a reaction bonus, but instead cancel a penalty for not having time to bathe and prepare yourself. Basically, it's Sartorial Integrity, but for hygeine and perfume rather than clothing. If it is actually meant to make you smell better than you could manage with equipment and preparation time, then yes, it's basically scent-based Charisma.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Well, Ambidexterity cost only 5 points so by up a -4 technique for just one weapon don’t make much sense… the perk see just fine to me…

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Yep; in 3e it was a technique - it didn't make sense vs. Ambidexterity. Unless you (Figleaf23) think Ambidexterity should cost 10+ points?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Which simply leads to my harangue on how underpriced Ambidexterity is!

(Edit: as anticipated by Transmetahuman)

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

The net effect is exactly the same. Moreover, I do think that DR is too cheap, but I also think that DR for humans is even more cheap. E.g., regardless of DR price, I think humans should pay a significant UB to use it.

It appears to me that Basic Set goes at great lenght to discourage players and GMs from applying enhancement and limitations to skills.

Thank you!

If Ambidexterity costs only 5 points, OHWT is too costly as a 4-points technique (assuming it's average). It could be a 2/3 point "Perk", OR you could raise Ambidexterity price to 6 or 7.

Actually OHWT as a technique can make sense even if it costs almost the same as Ambidexterity... IF the GM allows Techniques to be learned more easily than new advantages (as the RAW suggest under "Learnable advantages").

Armor Familiarity does not say you NEED armor; it simply ALLOWS you to use armor (or carry heavy things, or whatever) without penalties. Even for Judo and Karate, that's VERY useful.
Of course if you want to play an unarmored character, you won't buy Armor Familiarity... but if you do, it's a huge abuse.

This is a "realism" issue to me. If those weapons are exotic and unwieldy, they SHOULD be unwieldy... there should be no "little trick" to overcome their shortcomings.
Note that Exotic Weapon Training is labelled as "realistic", not cinematic.
Moreover, that Perk is effectively *compulsory*. If your PC uses an exotic weapon and does not buy it, he will be seriously disadvantaged.

Then 5 points are too many, but 1 is definitely not enough. 2, 3, or 4... there are lot of possibilities :)

Two mistakes does not make a "correct" rule.
If bows are underpowered, then they should be corrected... and not by using a munckiny perk.

I cannot know what it is "meant" to be, but if you read the Perk description it definitely doesn't look like "Sartorial Integrity for perfume".

I hate to say the same things over and over, but... if we are to judge how Perks are underpriced, we MUST stick to Perks as written. We should not use some imaginary, different version of each Perk in this discussion.

Of course I am 'cheating' a little in that respect, since by the RAW you cannot buy as many Perks as you like; you are limited to 1 for each X points.
That's why I said that those increased prices are meant for a campaign where you have no "hard limit" on how many Perks you can buy.

I feel, though, that even if you use such limit, Perks should be better balanced. I see little reason for using "unbalanced" Perks - if they all cost 1 point, they should all be more or less equivalent; and if some are clearly more powerful than others, they should cost more.

I know that GURPS is not HERO but it should not be D&D, either...

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Sure, and I totally agree that 99% of the time it's a horrible idea. However, the rules support doing it occasionally.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Underpriced for what? My feeling is that if you're using it to also buy an Extra Attack that you can use with your of hand, you would be better of buying the Extra Attack with Multistrike +20% instead for the same price. I'd rather have two attacks with my assault rifle than one with each of my two pistols, if Ambidexterity costed more, using two pistols would actually be more expensive.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

This one example may be clever.
But I see nothing clever in taking Shield Wall Training and a Large Shield... it would be really stupid not to do so.

The problem isn't "creative combos" - it's that many Perks are simply unbalanced because they grant a +1 or +2 to skill or parry, *without* significant drawbacks. They are little tricks that allow experienced players to "cheat" GURPS.

Night vision isn't a very good example because it's arguably one of the worst balanced traits in the whole Basic Set.

In ALL campaigns darkness penalties will be common (in some campaigns more than others). Even if it's not pitch black, GURPS gives significant penalties for darkness (e.g., -3 for "torchlight", see B394).
I usually charge 2 points/level for Night Vision, and all my players still try to buy as many levels as they can.
Even at 3 points/level it would be a good deal, since
1) it benefits ALL combat skills and most Sense rolls
2) a significant portion of fights and adventure scenes do not happen in full daylight

The only case when Night Vision isn't "overpowered" for its cost is when the GM forgets about darkness penalties; or possibly, when magical spells/high tech devices are so commonly used that they can "replace" Night Vision.

And remember that usually in GURPS traits are priced assuming you will make a good use of them - Kromm stated that in several occasions.
That's why DR (Limited: Fire) only costs -40% or so less than "full" DR, instead of -80% as it "could" be. Because the game assumes that the PC with DR against Fire will try to expose himself to fire, face enemies who use fire and so on.

By the same reasoning, all Perks/advantages that grant a bonus to weapon skills under certain circumstances should have a cost close to 4 (the "full" cost to improve a skill).
E.g.: Weapon Bond should cost more than 1 point, because it grants a +1 to skill with "your favourite weapon only" - and guess what? Most characters will try to use their favourite weapon all the time, until they lose/replace it.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

What, no hate for Power Grappling? It's never going to fail to be substantially 'underpriced' for any character who takes it.

It also seems to be an essential rules patch for grappling characters with superhuman strength.

It seems to me that a powerful perk is often an only semi-optional game feature. But if they're good features, having them is better than not, isn't it?

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I was going to write a long post deconstructing every single one of the points you made, but several people have beaten me to several of them, and the entire thing just became antagonistic-sounding. I will summarize with this:

-"Buying off a penalty" is not the same as "a bonus to skill" unless that penalty applies all the time, in every situation for which that skill can be used.

-If *any* penalty applies all the time, in every situation for which a skill can be used, the GM or the player is probably doing something wrong.

-Perks explicitly grant up to +2 to a skill in limited circumstances. This is one of their stated purposes, right out of the Basic Set. If you want to complain that "+2 to a skill is too good for a perk", you should probably throw out Perks altogether.

-You complain that some perks should be strictly controlled by the GM. I ask, "What, you mean the GM isn't already controlling what goes onto character sheets?". If you simply assume that everything in every book is automatically suitable for every game that might be run, I have an AWESOME TL12 power-armored soldier that I'd like to play in your next Banestorm game.

-A lot of your objections seem to come from an imperfect reading of the perk, or a poor understanding of exactly what the perk does. I'd be happy to point these out individually by PM if you're curious.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Power Grappling is not all that scary by ability, but it still should probably be split into two different Perks, by effect. Still, it is essential for modelling the archetypal Aikidoka.

Most other combat perks should be compared to 'Easy Techniques', i.e. they should be treated as two levels of a Technique that cancels some obscure penalties (compare: ground fighting, timed defense, low fighting, targeted attack . . .).

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I'd also like to add that it also seems to be a poor understanding of the design of the system itself and how it is intended to work.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about techniques? Many of the perks you are objecting to do much the same thing - drop 1 point into them and they give you a +1 to skill to offset a penalty.

How did I miss that one? Yeah, that ought to be a technique of each individual skill. It even comes in levels. Why is it a Perk?

You may be reading more into that than I am. I assumed it applied only to the rules for grappling (i.e. gives the opponent a -4 to DX until he breaks free) and not to the setup for locks etc., which makes it fairly useless actually.

I think it's actually something of the reverse, more a really expensive non-familiarity penalty that takes an actual point to buy off entirely rather than a few hours of practice.
Kind of a grey area depending on how exotic you think exotic weapons are I suppose, since the other way of looking at it would be as a cheap way to buy off the default penalty between say Spear and the otherwise unlisted Trident skill.

Depends on your interpret of "or" and "(or both)", I think just cutting that bit in parenthesis pretty well fixes it. Making one grip change as a free action isn't as open to this particular tactic, because you couldn't shift out and back into the Defensive Grip on either side of your attack roll, which if you read or as exclusive or may be the way the Perk is supposed to be interpreted even as written.

Though I'm not sure what rolls you'd normally make that isn't to hit or a defense. But yeah, I think rolls against ST are a bad idea in any circumstances whatsoever, and failure of 4e to kill them out is one of its bigger disappointments. Still the wrestling rules already suffer from lots of them (locks using margins of success of ST contests instead of damage rolls is basically the same thing) so I don't know this is any worse.

Eh, Sacrificial Block is pretty trivial - I'd personally call it the free default - I'm parrying that blow even though I already know it is going to miss is perfectly reasonable (and could be worth doing in general, say to set up a techique that starts with a parry), that it was going to hit somebody else doesn't change anything really. I will give you that buying off a -2 penalty is a lot like a technique that ought to cost 2 points, for several skills.
The obvious balancing factor is to say it only works *when you are standing in a shield wall*, so no bonus unless there is somebody else with a large shield standing in one or more of your side hexes and with the same facing. That was how I was reading it, but I admit it doesn't actually say that.

Hm. Striking Strength +2 (only one attack -60%) would be 4 points, you should probably charge that, and call the skill requirement an excuse not to pay an additional point for Special Exercises.

I still think those ought to be free. But it has a lot of other benefits. On the other hand it does make everyone burn a turn on a Ready maneuver and limits your actions some - e.g. you can't charge unless everyone does, or retreat as easily. I'd have to see it in play for a while before I decided it wasn't balanced.

This one is forced by the low cost of Ambidexterity, and raising that, well, normally you just use your primary hand to avoid a penalty.

Eh, it's a particular instance of Unusual Background, these always call for GM judgement. You could equally well argue it should be free and advantages should be balanced at their native costs.

I often talk to people I'm not standing right next too, but yeah it is ill defined. I assumed it was intended as a bonus to seduction with the usual vague the writing up for the sake of the PG rating. I don't see how what you smell like makes a difference in a potential combat reaction roll. Otherwise, well, Charisma (sense based -20%) [4]

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I am in fact curious and I'd really like to be enlightened by PM...

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I went into the thread thinking: "What? Perks are perfectly alright!", but after looking at the examples I have to agree with Lupo on, perhaps not all, but many points.

While I think many suspicious looking perks are quite alright, although perhaps closer to 2 points in actual value, a few of them (Strongbow?) strike me as under-priced.
That's fine though, I can sort out a rare few perks... but if people start comparing to Strongbow when creating Perks we're going to start thumbing downhill.


Really, if the perk is there bows are underpowered, then what will we be see next?
Regrowth (Minor) + Technique "Critical Regrowth" [HT-4 Hard]?

...actually, about that, given the initiatives taken by GURPS Psionic Powers... well, maybe we will see something like that.



Note: I Think GURPS Psionic Powers looks really cool, but mixing Skill with Power Ability looks dangerous. Techniques for Enhancements....
Perhaps this is just that "Humanity" Flaw a game needs to feel less artificial like some guys said in the 3rd versus 4th edition thread awhile ago. :P
(I don't trust points to create fair characters in the first place (when things get complex), so for me it isn't really that much of a problem though. ;) )

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Weapon Bond is useless if you get disarmed. Weapon Bond is useless if you're the kind of character who wields a wide variety of weapons, or whatever he gets his hands on (a staple of the cinematic badass). Weapon Bond is useless when you are stripped of your weapons (say, you get sent to prison) and you have to grab the nearest thing once you escape. Weapon bond is useless if your weapon breaks (and GURPS has rules on weapon breakage, so it's not like it's something that doesn't happen).

Finally, Weapon Bond encourages people to form last relationships with one piece of hardware, rather than ditching what they have as soon as something better comes along. It allows me to have "my ancestral sword" and not feel like a chump.

Alot of your "This perk is overpowered" assumes worst case scenarios, rather than what actually tends to happen in a real game, IMO

EDIT: Further consider, what would you price a technique for "This one weapon only?" It would have to be average and it would have to cost 1 point per level.

I think you mainly have a skewed sense of what's balance, since a 5 points tends to give you a very broad +1, 4 points gives you a slightly less broad (skills, and often not really a good buy unless you want to be a specialist), and 1 point per +1 under highly limited circumstances is fine. You're just seeing players who maximize that highly limited circumstances ("My nightvision character prefers to fight at night"), but that's just good gameplay, not a problem. It doesn't mean it's not pathetically easy to strip a player of the advantages associated with Weapon Bond or Nightvision.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Another good example. You argue that nobody buys their skills at DX+1 or less. However, you disregard the plethora of players who buy DX to high values (say, 15 or 18 or so) and then buy a wide variety of skills, or even a Wild Card skill. The sorts of characters you're talking about are specialists, and DX+2 is only really a good buy for someone who wants high levels of Archery and nothing else. For those of us who want Acrobatics and swordsmanship and some melee skills and Stealth and some high levels of DX skills wouldn't buy them all at DX+2. They'd buy high DX.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Basically, Strongbow is almost the same thing as 'Enjoys Karate-like damage bonuses', only weaker. The bothersome thing is that it stacks with Weapon Master, but even so, a +1 damage at that point isn't much, given how much goodness mêlée WMs enjoy.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

You're crazy, man. Do you have some kinda uber keyboard, or did you alt-coded all of that yourself? Or do you maybe have it loaded in Ctrl-V for just such occassions? Whatever your secret is, man, you have my respect.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

For me if becomes a way to add to creative character building. I'm currently in Wrathchild's Arena game. Cinematic Skills are limited to those with Weapon Master/Trained by a Master...and only if those skills are in a Style you are familiar with. I have a fencer. I've designed him as a calm, cool, collected noble simmering with rage underneath. I imagined him with the commanding presence of a knight...that he basically is a knight/samurai type...but from Araterre where knights are of the swashbucklery sort. And all those other styles include Kiai, but his doesn't. But I think his character concept means that he should have it. Unusual Training (and GM approval) will allow me to realize my character vision. There are some other things I'm going to want as well to round out the character...and make him effective in the arena vs. ST20 behemoths with staves.

But this isn't about one-ups. This is about crafting a character that fits a vision.

I think Perks are awesome. And using them with the recommended limitations...I see no overpowered problems at all. And some Perks are cinematic and not useful in Realistic games. But playing with Wrathchild I'm really excited about running a quasi-cinematic game....where most people won't have access to cinematic powers...without the Weapon Master/Trained by a Master/Unusual Training Perk...sort of a low-powered cinematics. And Perks will help me craft that while keeping the available styles limited to genre appropriate ones.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I'm using a standard physical keyboard (though I recently found that A-shaped KBs are great), but my keyboard dæmon has Compose Keys enabled (I'm using USA International Keyboard with deadkeys layout). I suppose Windows has something like that too.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

There are no new mechanics in Psionic Powers. That's the defaulting and temporary enhancement rules right from GURPS powers, being used.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

I would think a US physical keyboard layout would be inconvenient. Isn't Ukranian written in a Cyrillic alphabet? I know some languages abandoned it for Latin scripts in the 1990s, but surely its use is older in Ukranian than in Russian.

Edit - And yes, recent versions of Windows have a feature to convert your US keyboard to a US International keyboard on the Control Panel under Language and Region or Clock Language and Region depending on which version. It's thru Languages and Details in ME and XP, Text Services and Input Languages in Vista.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

Why should it matter? The number and physical positions of the keys are the same. Only the assigned characters differ.

Now, I remember a Japanese kb I used when I tried learning the language. It had a few extra keys, and they did matter.

And just in case this is what you're asking: converting a Russian kb into a Ukrainian one is easy. Replace ë with an apostroph (though for some reasons this is rarely done), the hard sign with ï, swap two letters in places (replace one of them with 'i'), and reassing Э то Є (no kidding about the last one).

I'm actually pretty puzzled why US-Int(w/deadkeys) isn't the default layout for English-speaking countries. It support pretty much everything you could ever need on a latin keyboard.

Re: Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?
 

The point of Weapon Bond is more to better allow a certain type of character concept, and there are several with which it simply won't match (my Ark Nekris character, for example, is essentially the poster child for Weapon Bond not working). If you think of it as the Signature Gear advantage, with the limitations that you still have to pay for most of the price and it isn't plot-protected, 1 point to get Balanced (+1 to skill) on a weapon doesn't seem underpriced at all. Indeed, one could argue that it's overpriced in this regard - except that Weapon Bond and Balanced stack.

I'm honestly not that fond of the name of this Perk. The way I look at it, it's more useful for letting you fight in situations where you can't drop your gear to fight. Also bear in mind that being encumbered beyond light drops your movement rate and Dodge. Finally, if you consistently fight encumbered, you're going to burn through FP more rapidly, which means fewer Heroic Charges, Flurry of Blows, etc. that fencing types can greatly benefit from.

As mentioned, EWT is just to offset what is arguably an overbalanced penalty to begin with. And, yes, every fighter who consistently uses an "exotic" weapon will be fully proficient in its use. That doesn't strike me as odd in the least.

Actually, it's a +1 to Parry. Unless you've spent points raising your Staff above default, that is. So it's a somewhat-limited form of Enhanced Parry. Possibly still overpriced in the case of Spear-to-Staff, however.

As mentioned, it's a +1 to parry half the time. The sequence of events would go - Attack, then Defensive Grip. Normal grip, then Attack. Attack, then Defensive Grip. And so on. You can only make a grip change once per turn.

People who routinely use a heavy shield in combat are going to train to be able to do so effectively. I don't honestly think it's that overpriced.

I most certainly agree with strict control, but with that in mind it shouldn't really cost more. GM control should avoid most abuse, and that's really the only problem with these perks.

Ranged weapons, like the bow, have built-in limitations that makes that +2 to striking strength much less useful than it would be with a melee weapon. As for all dedicated archers having the Perk - yeah, that's a given. A lot of Perks are of the "all dedicated [blah] will have this Perk." It's part of what defines the archetype.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your enemies are going to have the same advantages against you, unless you've invested more points in another style... which your enemies can do as well.

Alternatively, charging more for it would likely make it useless. "Sure, I can spend 3 points to be able to use a Broadsword equally well with both hands... but just 2 more points and I can do everything equally well with both hands!"

Again, a function of DR's pricing, not the Perk. Also, each level only lets you buy one bit of DR - and I think it mentions some limits to how much you should be able to buy.


I only commented on the Perks I'm familiar with, here. Stuff like Magical Weapon Bond and Perfume I've never seen (I suspect they're in Perks), and the others I'm just not that familiar with.