Perk Limit

[Langy]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why do you think you can just retitle a "Combat" or "Style" as a "General" perk and then take it?

I'm not. Look at Power-Ups 2: Perks again. There's a single section called 'Combat Perks'. These perks can not be 'retitled' to 'General', because no retitling is going on. Instead, what's happening is some perks are titled under 'General' AND 'Combat' (the 'combat-enhancing perks that are not in the General location). Most Style perks are titled under both 'Combat' AND 'Style'. Some perks are titled under 'General', 'Style', AND 'Combat' all at once.

Also, there are no rules restricting you from taking perks from a combat style under your general allotment. The extra perk per 10 points in style skills is a bonus allotment.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you can just rename that Combat Perk as a General Perk then how is that actually limiting the character to the skill-based limit at all?

It sounds like that perk, in particular, is intended to be the least restricted kind, essentially "can be bought as part of any of the kinds of perk slots." (Excluding magic for simplicity.) By design, not by house rule.

[DouglasCole]

This may be a Venn diagram issue. It sounds like Kromm is saying that the set of General Perks and the set of Combat Perks are mutually exclusive. So those two circles do not overlap.

However, Style perks may also include General and Combat perks, and potentially have some that are their own thing. So that set overlaps both Combat and General perks, and may also have a few of its very own (but maybe not).

I'd tend to put Social Perks inside of General perks, as a named class falling within the set of General Perks. Style perks may STILL overlap with these.

In the very particular case I talked about, perhaps in some other thread, for Strongbow and Special Exercises (Arm ST +1-3), my tendency would be to definitely place Special Exercises (Arm ST) in the General category.

Canonically, from PU2, Strongbow is a Combat Perk. OK . . . but how does one spend 20 points in combat skills alone, yet still have a perk that kicks in at DX+1 or DX+2?

In this particular case - and there may be others - as a GM I'd allow an archer character to buy strongbow if he'd spent 20 points in any bow-related character traits at all if I were to hew closely to the 20 points per combat perk suggestion. Otherwise, other than Fast Draw (Arrow), Quick-Ready (Bow), and Bow, you're really making it hard to make Strongbow count at the DX+1 level. So I'd count nearly anything, such as ST and I'd include the Arm ST bought as Special Exercises.

Another way to go would be to redefine Strongbow as a Perk that allows you to buy aspected Arm ST at up to 2 more levels, but only for the purposes of drawing bows. Or just make it Arm ST (Drawing Bows Only) for 3/level (same as Lifting ST) or 2/level (so it's less utility than Lifting ST) and take it out of the perks category altogether.

My point where I said "take it however you like" was narrowly focused to Strongbow, I think. I will admit to taking a weak view on the perk limit suggestions - I think the writing strongly implies that they're definitely suggestions, not "you should do this" rules - but my biggest issues is that I think Strongbow should be available to any serious archer type who has spent time practicing drawing and aiming a heavy bow.

[Kalzazz]

Whats Quick-Ready Bow? Where is that from?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Whats Quick-Ready Bow? Where is that from?

It's possible I'm remembering something from 3e. I thought there was a technique or perk that let you shave time off of the reload time for bows.

Ah . . . there it is. Martial Arts, p., 119: Quick-Shooting Bows.

[Dragondog]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

This may be a Venn diagram issue. It sounds like Kromm is saying that the set of General Perks and the set of Combat Perks are mutually exclusive. So those two circles do not overlap.

However, Style perks may also include General and Combat perks, and potentially have some that are their own thing. So that set overlaps both Combat and General perks, and may also have a few of its very own (but maybe not).

The rules for Combat Perks in PU2 are the same as the rules in Martial Arts for Style Perks, though style-specific Style Perks get their own limit. But some Style Perks, such as Chi Resistance, are not Combat Perks.

So if you have Style Familiarity (La Verdadera Destreza) you can take the Chi Resistance (Kiai) Perk as a general perk, style perk, or style-specific style perk.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

The rules for Combat Perks in PU2 are the same as the rules in Martial Arts for Style Perks, though style-specific Style Perks get their own limit. But some Style Perks, such as Chi Resistance, are not Combat Perks.

So if you have Style Familiarity (La Verdadera Destreza) you can take the Chi Resistance (Kiai) Perk as a general perk, style perk, or style-specific style perk.

Yeah, I should have read more closely. The full text isn't just "points spent in skills," but

Originally Posted by Combat Perks, PU2 p. 4

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. Combat-effective perks from other
categories – notably Shticks (pp. 14-15), Skill Perks (pp. 15-17),
and Unusual Background Perks (pp. 20-21) – count as combat
perks for this purpose.

The "points in a template" solves my Strongbow issue, since points spent in DX, ST, archery and craft skills would all count.

[Dragondog]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Yeah, I should have read more closely. The full text isn't just "points spent in skills," but



The "points in a template" solves my Strongbow issue, since points spent in DX, ST, archery and craft skills would all count.

I guess I should have reread those rules before I made my post, as "Combat-effective perks from other categories – ... – count as combat perks for this purpose." may have invalidated my Chi Resistance example.

But the quote didn't say "points in a template" it said "points spent on the skills and techniques of a combative character template, fighting style, or similar abilities package that offers combat perks" so points in DX and ST wouldn't count.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

But the quote didn't say "points in a template" it said "points spent on the skills and techniques of a combative character template, fighting style, or similar abilities package that offers combat perks" so points in DX and ST wouldn't count.

Might or might not, depending on whether the character has a character template or abilities package that includes them and also offers combat perks.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

I guess I should have reread those rules before I made my post, as "Combat-effective perks from other categories – ... – count as combat perks for this purpose." may have invalidated my Chi Resistance example.

But the quote didn't say "points in a template" it said "points spent on the skills and techniques of a combative character template, fighting style, or similar abilities package that offers combat perks" so points in DX and ST wouldn't count.

That gets back to my nitpick with strongbow, though - the skills and techniques of an archer are basically, Bow, Bow, Fast-Draw (Bow), Bow, Armory (Bow), and Bow. Maybe I missed one. :-)

I'd label Strongbow as a perk that allows an exception similar to that given to Capoeira stylists - some perks you can just buy right away once you start in the style. I would likely slap a few other trivialities on it: min of 1 point in the skill, and probably either +1 ST or Arm ST, to represent repetitive drawing of the bow. But that 20 point minimum means that the +1 ST for a bow you get at DX+1 is pointless, since even if you do Bow at 8 points, F-D (Bow) at 8 points, and Armoury (Bow) at 4 points . . . you're still at DX+2 already.