Width vs depth, IQ vs DX skills

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Kromm

My experience, then, is that there are campaign types where high IQ and IQ-based skills (and Per and Per-based skills, especially) are more important than high DX and DX-based skills, and where most of the PCs have lots of IQ-based skills at high levels.

Absolutely. Thinking a bit more about this, I think the phenomenon I'm experiencing is that characters commonly find that they need enough IQ-based skills at high levels that raising IQ is the economic way to improve. However, the number of DX-based skills for which they need high skill levels is small enough that buying up the skills individually is often cost-effective.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Absolutely. Thinking a bit more about this, I think the phenomenon I'm experiencing is that characters commonly find that they need enough IQ-based skills at high levels that raising IQ is the economic way to improve. However, the number of DX-based skills for which they need high skill levels is small enough that buying up the skills individually is often cost-effective.

That fits – and it goes double for Per-based skills. High Per is really, really effective for secret agents, who almost always end up with Observation and Search; can find many uses for Body Language, Detect Lies, Lip Reading, Scrounging, Tracking, and Urban Survival; and regularly make Per-based rolls against the likes of Poisons and Traps. Team members who provide DX-based capabilities can usually be described in terms like "the sniper with remarkable Guns (Rifle)" and "the wheel man with impressive Driving (Automobile)." The notable exception in the secret-agents context is the intrusion expert, whose mix of Climbing, Forced Entry, Stealth, etc. with Electronics Operation, Lockpicking, Traps, and the like pushes up both DX and IQ while driving down points in any one skill.