Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome
For those arguing that Sword Guy isn't a viable build, you're just not playing games where such a niche exists, which is totally fine. It exists in DF, and if you read the published adventures, a Sword Guy is an extremely effective character type to handle the kinds of threats in those adventures. If you build a 250 character using the Swashbuckler template, everything works out fine. Once you add another 40 or so points, that's when things get out of hand and that character potentially becomes ludicrously effective (unless you adopt one of various house rules like the ones suggested in this thread, many of which strike me as excellent ideas).
|
I personally agree with you here. It is no more or less viable than any other build, which is totally dependent on the setting and how the GM runs the game. All the arguments against it where basically based on variations of "the GM just needs to make scenarios where Broadsword 40 isn't useful"... well those scenarios apply just as equally to someone with Broadsword 14. A Royal Ball with no sword fighting makes everyone's combat skills, regardless of level, irrelevant. But when the scenario calls for melee fighting, it works. So these arguments all amount to "what if", and since there's an infinite number of what if scenarios, that build will be viable in some and not in others.
I personally think getting such a high skill level is a waste of character points for not much gain. But that's my opinion/judgement, not a fact. Others will view it worthwhile, and they're not wrong. They just view it differently than me.
For those who don't want such high skills to be as useful - and thus not as worth investing points in - you need to cap to some of the effects of a combat skill: Active Defense and Deceptive Attacks. Pick a value you think is a "realistic maximum".. let's say 20 for example. Have Active Defenses cap out at that level, so any skill above 20 doesn't add to active defenses. Likewise, Deceptive Attack can't reduce skill below 10 (I always thought it was 12.. huh), so with the 20 cap then you can't do a Deceptive Attack greater than -10 to skill for -5 to defenses, regardless of how high your skill gets. At that point, getting skill levels above 20 are only there to counter other penalties, so it's still useful, but not as much. So people won't be as interested in increasing the combat skills higher (e.g., they may stop at Broadsword 30 instead of Broadsword 40).
(Personally, I think a simple cap to skill is even easier, but the above is sort of a middle ground approach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome
For those arguing that raising skill costs cause problems elsewhere, I haven't seen such problems. DX costs 20/level, which is a big sacrifice for raising that skill by one level, which means the player has to save up a lot of points, not buy other potentially powerful abilities, etc. It will take a lot longer to outclass the world's threats at 20/level than 4/level, and a lot longer to outpace other party members whose niche is less fully covered by a single skill.
|
I don't follow here. You're not comparing 20/level to 4/level; that's the rules now. You are comparing 20/level to whatever your upper cost for higher level skills are in an increasing cost system. As soon as the price of the skill reaches 20/level or more, the attribute wins. (e.g., using the one example where the cost of the skill increased by 1 point each level, that would be at DX +20 and higher).
It also ups the importance of attributes when you have more than one skill you want to increase. With the actual rules, increasing DX for 20/level is better than increase 5 skills at 4/level because it also increased Basic Speed, Move, and Dodge. If skills cost 10/level, well, suddenly it's better than increasing 2 skills. If the costs of skills goes even higher, it's even better.
Yes, Broadsword 40 may be cheaper to build just paying for 1 skill (if the cost per skill remains less than 20/level), but as you said you still have plenty of points for other things... So why settle for Broadsword 40 when I can have Broadsword, Shield, Climbing, Acrobatics and Stealth 40 for just a few points more by increasing DX to high levels?
The current GURPS rules aren't perfect as the optimization of point use already exists. As I mentioned, the moment you hit 5 skills to improve, it's cost neutral to up an attribute and that actually improves characteristics as well (and
GURPS Power-UPs 9: Alternate Attributes even provides an argument for raising the cost of DX to 30/level to partially mitigate this). If you increase the cost per skill, this becomes even more of an issue. Even if that only takes place at much higher skill levels (say at DX+5 or DX+10).. that delays it, but it eventually hits a point where it becomes better to up the attribute.
And just because you haven't seen that issue, it doesn't mean others haven't (as supported by talks of optimization in
GURPS Power-UPs 9: Alternate Attributes). Just like others haven't seen the Broadsword 40 issue in their games but you have.
Anyway, in the end, I still think the best way to solve this is for players and GMs to sit together an carefully explain expectations. And expectations usually translate into some sort of cap, whether direct ("no skills above 20") or indirect ("don't expect skills above 20 to be useful") or even ("there won't be any combat in my games so don't waste time with combat skills").
Changing the point cost of skills creates other "issues." And I do put "issues" in quotation because not everyone views them as issues. Some will think it creates bigger problems (in this case, I fall in this group), others will think it doesn't matter, and others will actually think the new "issue" is a bonus feature. I'm just trying to point out what is connected so that the GM can make an informed decision for his or her own campaign.