Perk Limit

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you can just take them as one of your 1/25 total character points Perks instead, how is the 1/20 of Combat Skills even really a limit? Except in the unlikely event you already have 6+ perks and want more?

Because you do want more. There are lots of quite useful perks out there, many of which specialize by skill (and so fill a lot of slots if you want them for multiple skills). It's not hard to come up at least one per good skill your character has that would make sense.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

Why spend the 1/25 general perks on stuff I can spend the 1/20 combat perks on? I can use the general perks for other stuff.

Because 20 points in combat skills and techniques is a lot of points. Say you are a 75 point archer and you want Strong Bow and Special Exercises: Arm ST (2). Do you need 60 points in Bow in order to do that? Or can you just take them with your three general Perks?

What Kromm seems to saying is that you need 60 points in Bow, or 30 points in Bow with an Archery Style because those "Style Perks" aren't available with the regular perk limits. Martial Arts and Power Ups 2 both seem to support this reading. However the consensus here seems to be that I'm wrong.

But if I am wrong, then really why does Power Ups 2 say:

Originally Posted by Power Ups 2 page 4

Regardless of the campaign’s limit on perks, it’s recommended that the GM limit fighters to one combat perk per 20 points in combat, military, and/or police skills, and then allow one extra perk per 10 points spent on the skills and techniques of a combative character template, fighting style, or similar abilities package that offers combat perks.

That seems to be pretty clear that what PU2 calls Combat Perks (and what Kromm wants to call Style Perks, here) are subject to this special limit and can't be taken above that. How am I misreading this?

Originally Posted by malloyd

Because you do want more. There are lots of quite useful perks out there, many of which specialize by skill (and so fill a lot of slots if you want them for multiple skills). It's not hard to come up at least one per good skill your character has that would make sense.

I've been running GURPS 4e since it came out. I barely see players taking any perks at all. At most 1-2 per character. Something's wrong with my players?

[Kalzazz]

I have found in games where the perk limit is strictly enforced it tends to result in very high weapons skills, like Guns MG 30 to get all the perks you wanted for Guns MG

[Dragondog]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Because 20 points in combat skills and techniques is a lot of points. Say you are a 75 point archer and you want Strong Bow and Special Exercises: Arm ST (2). Do you need 60 points in Bow in order to do that? Or can you just take them with your three general Perks?

I don't usually play games with that few points. But even in my 380-400 point games, which is where most of my games start, players usually don't take that many perks. I still think it is good practice to spend the most restrictive perks first.

What Kromm seems to saying is that you need 60 points in Bow, or 30 points in Bow with an Archery Style because those "Style Perks" aren't available with the regular perk limits. Martial Arts and Power Ups 2 both seem to support this reading. However the consensus here seems to be that I'm wrong.

But if I am wrong, then really why does Power Ups 2 say:

That seems to be pretty clear that what PU2 calls Combat Perks (and what Kromm wants to call Style Perks, here) are subject to this special limit and can't be taken above that. How am I misreading this?

I think Kromm has explained RAW, but that most people in this thread doesn't play RAW.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I've been running GURPS 4e since it came out. I barely see players taking any perks at all. At most 1-2 per character. Something's wrong with my players?

The only place where I'd want more than 6 perks would be some kind of cinematic high-points game, where I'd pick most perks for the 'cool factor'.

However, this is with neither combat perks nor racial/template perks. The latter two will vary depending on how much they factor in styles and templates. I haven't made detailed martial artists in quite a while, but those are likely to have maximum combat perks (judging by my attempts back in the day). My racial templates for fantasy or space opera seem to have 3-5 perks easily, but in my current campaign the races have very few perks.

Players seem too lazy to read PU2 for the full list, though I suppose some would pick a handful if they bothered. Not everyone. Stuff like Signature Gear or the common 'just in case' skill are just much more likely to eat up the lonely 1-2 spare points left over after the main concept is filled.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Should combat (and style) perks count against the suggested perk limit on page 3 of Power-Ups 2 or are they additional?

I can see two or three reasons why the designer (Sean Punch, AFAIK) might have chosen to suggest an imposed limit on Perks:

1. They are underpriced for what they do. If the real cost is between 0.7 and 1.2 CP per Perk, then an actual cost of 1 CP is fine, and there's no game balance need to impose limits on Perks. But if a significant subset of them are actually undercosted and ought to cost between 1.5 and 2.5 CP then imposing a limit makes sense.

2. They make the game more complicated, so the designer saw it as desirable to put in (suggested) mechanics to reduce their per-character prevalance.

Many Perks are simple in nature, you buy it, it lets you do X, or it does X on its own.

But Perks can also be complex, by adding extra rules such as an FP cost per use, or the necessity of a skill or attribute roll. Such "implicit Limitations" can be added to Perks in order to counter-act item #1 above (if you add an FP cost per use to a Perk whose true value is 1.7 CP then its true value will drop to something that's less than 1.7 CP), but adds to the complexity of the game, and so in turn the number of Perks-per-character gets limited in order to avoid high complexity.

I admit I haven't looked much as the Perks in Power-Ups nor in Magical Styles. 1 CP stuff has a tendency to fall "below my radar". If it's so cheap, my assumption is that it probably won't make a difference except once in a quite rare while. But what I do seem to recall points to most Perks being fairly simple, rather than laden down with usage Limiations or other usage restrictions. Even nonLimited Perks adds a slight degree of complexity to the character, for each Perk, although much less so than if item #2 is in force.

3. It's GURPS' old problem of getting players to actually invest appreciable amounts of CPs in skills of their own free will, during character creation, instead of buying high Attributes (and in 4E also Talents). So the various rules on Perk limits are there in order to reward for and encourage the practice of actually purchasing high skills.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I've been running GURPS 4e since it came out. I barely see players taking any perks at all. At most 1-2 per character. Something's wrong with my players?

I find that I typically only take 1-2 perks at character generation, but add them as the character develops. My character with the most perks started with one, but now has ten, having acquired nine in the process of advancing from 225 to 390 points. They are a cheap method of getting a limited but focused improvement once you've got a clearer idea of just what happens in a campaign.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

I don't usually play games with that few points. But even in my 380-400 point games, which is where most of my games start, players usually don't take that many perks. I still think it is good practice to spend the most restrictive perks first.

It's unlikely that "real" longbowman were all 380 point characters. If you were modeling the archers that served on the Mary Rose, or fought at Crécy how would you do it? Surely not as 380 point characters?

I think Kromm has explained RAW, but that most people in this thread doesn't play RAW.

My problem is when people tell me that the RAW allows you to purchase "Style" or "Combat" perks above the 1/20 or 1/10 limits, which as far as can tell neither Power Ups 2, Martial Arts or Kromm's comments here actually supports. So either I'm reading these wrong, or they are.

[Langy]

The suggested perk limit is basically an arbitrary guideline for completely gameist reasons; if you want to model a realistic situation, you ignore any limits like that (just like you ignore point optimization).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Langy

The suggested perk limit is basically an arbitrary guideline for completely gameist reasons; if you want to model a realistic situation, you ignore any limits like that (just like you ignore point optimization).

Clearly still speaking Martian here. I don't care about house rules, and I don't care about "just throwing stuff out". I'm trying to understand what the actual rules are supposed to be and how they are intended to interact by the authors.


Whether I (or you, or anybody even Kromm) house rules them is immaterial here. I don't like house ruling things unless I feel I fully understand the RAW, and it's pretty clear that I do not (or you and the others do not). Please explain to me, with reference to the RAW, why I am wrong.