Skill Adaptation and Combat/Art/Sport

[agentCDE]

X defaults to Y-3

But it doesn't - You don't need to worry about the default to combat skill penalty when using a technique with an art/sport skill... I think. IDHMBWM.

...of course, you're still at -3 to use the technique in life-or-death combat - because you're not using a proper combat skill. But you're fine using, say Feint (Broadsword Sport) to feint while playing Singlestick, for example.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by agentCDE

But it doesn't - You don't need to worry about the default to combat skill penalty when using a technique with an art/sport skill... I think. IDHMBWM.

MA p.55.

Basic set p. 184.

[Joseph R]

Right pawsplay, the -3 penalty when using Karate Sport in a streetfight (combat skill) or when using Wrestling in a 'pro-wrestling' match (Art skill) is not affected by the Skill Adaptation perk. I'm not sure what benefit you think the perk would give.

You mentioned Katana and Katana Art originally. Let's use that for a couple of examples:

Hypothetical PC1 has Katana skill of 15 and technique Back Strike (Katana) of 14. The -3 default means that should PC1 try to use a Katana in a staged performance, their skills would be Katana Art 12 and Back Strike (Katana Art) of 11.

Hypothetical PC2 has Katana Art skill of 15 and technique Back Strike (Katana Art) of 14. The -3 default means that should PC2 try to use a Katana in a real fight, their skills would be Katana 12 and Back Strike (Katana) of 11.

Giving either of these PCs a Skill Adaptation perk of (Katana defaults to Katana Art) or (Katana Art defaults to Katana) would not change this. That is not what the perk of Skill Adaptation is for.

Do you actually believe that such a perk would eliminate the -3 default penalty? Is that what you are proposing?

The perk Skill Adaptation doesn't eliminate existing penalties. That is not what this perk is for. It is for basing one or more Technique(s) off a skill that is not normally allowed to have them at all.

Originally Posted by Skill Adaptation (p. MA51)
You can learn techniques that don’t default to a skill as if they did, at the usual default penalties.

Well pawsplay, if you want to eliminate the default -3 penalty for a combat art/sport skill, then buy off that penalty (Improving Skills from Default p. B173). Doing this with a 1-point Perk would not seem to me to be balanced within the RAW.

However, for a cinematic game it is quite possible for the GM to remove the need for separate art/combat skills altogether and just use the one skill for all three purposes. That would be a simpler solution anyway.

[the_matrix_walker]

this perk doesn't change defaults, it simply allows this weapon to be used with that skill...

Broadsword Art already uses a broadsword.

I could see an Adaption for Acrobatics to make your whole body more a part of the act with your weapon art... Or if you had Karate Art, an Adaption for staff or katana might work...

Perks can negate situational penalties up to 2 for specific purposes, so I cold see a Perk reducing the penalty to -2 for all "Weapon Arts" or -1 for a specific one, but not eliminating that penalty all together.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

this perk doesn't change defaults, it simply allows this weapon to be used with that skill...

Broadsword Art already uses a broadsword.

Agreed.

I could see an Adaption for Acrobatics to make your whole body more a part of the act with your weapon art... Or if you had Karate Art, an Adaption for staff or katana might work...

Sure.

Perks can negate situational penalties up to 2 for specific purposes, so I cold see a Perk reducing the penalty to -2 for all "Weapon Arts" or -1 for a specific one, but not eliminating that penalty all together.

OK. That could be balanced. But this might not be optimal enough for the OP, as the RAW allows you to buy off the -3 totally, but it seems that the CP cost is considered too high.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Unwitting Pawn

The perk Skill Adaptation doesn't eliminate existing penalties. That is not what this perk is for. It is for basing one or more Technique(s) off a skill that is not normally allowed to have them at all.

At a level equal to the original skill. Just as an example, look at Judo Throw, p. 75. If I allowed (Judo techniques default to Wrestling), then if I have Wrestling-12, I can perform a Judo throw at 12. Logically, then, if I allow (Judo defaults to Judo Art), then Judo Throw (Judo) would also default to Judo Art. That is the basis of what I first started thinking about. Why is this concept interesting to me?

As written, the rules for defaulting between Art and Combat forms stink. If I put 8 points into Judo and 8 points into Judo Art, with a DX 12, I get Judo-13 and Judo Art-13. If I put all 16 points into Judo, I get Judo-15. Now let's say I want to improve my Judo Art from my default of 12 to 13... I can spend four points on it. But I would be better off spending those 4 points on Judo, which will also get me Judo Art-13 and increased my Judo to 16 at the same time. There is never any incentive to "catch up" skills from defaults once they reach a certain level of usefulness. Instead, you do what is expressly allowed in the Basic Set and rejuggle your points to emphasize your primary skill. There is no such thing as a balanced Art/Combat character in GURPS unless you purposefully put your points in a trash bin and set fire to them.

Once suggestion I made a while back was to turn Art/Combat/Sport distinctions into Easy techniques. In that scenario, I would at least save one point by balancing Art and Combat skills rather than boosting the original skill. Further, using the rules for using techniques with other techniques, I don't have to invent a special rule for Art/Sport/Combat skill defaults.

Now, looking at Weapon Adaptation (Broadsword to Rapier), I see that a 1-point Perk has been invented to keep someone from developing an entirely redundant skill just to use a few more kinds of blade. I also see the Perk, Off-Hand training, which gets rid of prohibitively expensive and pointless Technique costs to get to the heard of the matter; it is, for all practical purposes, a highly discounted version of Ambidexterity and priced accordingly. In both these caes, a 1-point Perk has been used to get rid of cumbersome cost issues.

Conceptually, is there some reason to think Skill Adaptation (Broadsword to Broadsword Art) is more far-fetched than Weapon Adaptation (Broadsword to Rapier)? I do not really think so. I also note that MA encourages GMs to eliminate the Art/Combat/Sport distinctions in cinematic games if they find it helpful. Rather than doing so, I'm wondering if a Perk might be a way of creating a half-step between using the rules and not using the rules. Requiring the Perk means that fairly realistic fighters suffer appropriate penalties as would be expected. That Perk, however, allows "balanced" martialists to both artistic and effective in combat if that character concept is desired.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Conceptually, is there some reason to think Skill Adaptation (Broadsword to Broadsword Art) is more far-fetched than Weapon Adaptation (Broadsword to Rapier)? I do not really think so. I also note that MA encourages GMs to eliminate the Art/Combat/Sport distinctions in cinematic games if they find it helpful. Rather than doing so, I'm wondering if a Perk might be a way of creating a half-step between using the rules and not using the rules. Requiring the Perk means that fairly realistic fighters suffer appropriate penalties as would be expected. That Perk, however, allows "balanced" martialists to both artistic and effective in combat if that character concept is desired.

I'm not sure how I can explain this to you pawsplay, if I have so far failed to put it across in a way that makes sense to you. I'm a bit relentless though, so I'll give it another go ;)

Conceptually, what you want a perk to do (eliminate the -3 default between specific Art/Combat/Sport skill) is not what the perk that is already called Skill Adaptation does. Personally, I don't see the logic in the perk that you propose, for reasons already discussed. However, if the perk makes sense to you and if you are the GM of your own campaign, then go for it. Just please, please do NOT call your new perk Skill Adaptation, but rather call it something else instead.

MA has already given us "adaptation" perks called Skill Adaptation, Style Adaptation, Technique Adaptation and Weapon Adaptation. As your perk is intended to serve a different purpose to all these existing perks, it should have a different name. My suggestion would be "Combat Adaptation". That makes it much easier to distinguish. FREX, Combat Adaptation (Karate to Karate Sport) or Combat Adaptation (Broadsword to Broadsword Art) are now more clearly examples of a new perk.

TBH pawsplay, your OP could have been much clearer. If you had said "I have this idea for a new Perk. This is what is does. Thoughts? Reactions?" Then I think that the feedback would have been different. By making it seem that you had an idea for a new specialisation of an existing perk, this gave the appearance that you misunderstood how the existing Skill Adaptation perk operates mechanically.

As I've said, I don't think that this perk is for me as a GM, but that's just my opinion. If I was a player in your campaign, and you wanted the desired "half-step" you mentioned, then I would implore you to call the perk something different from Skill Adaptation just to avoid confusion. Whether or not you go with my suggested name is up to you :)

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Unwitting Pawn

Conceptually, what you want a perk to do (eliminate the -3 default between specific Art/Combat/Sport skill) is not what the perk that is already called Skill Adaptation does.

I don't particularly see why this is necessarily the case. Skill Adaptation already does several different kinds of things (see the bit about adding a parry).

In any case Skill Adaptation (all Katana techniques default to Katana Art) would exactly parallel the wording of one of the examples (Brawling techniques default to Karate), so if you insist on rules lawyering you'd have to agree that's legal. I happen to think that is abusive, but it is in the rule.

So SA (all Katana techniques default to Katana Art) should for example let you roll at Katana Art -2 to attack with the Katana from horseback (Cavalry Training) or Attack from Above. Technically you could insist you must still roll at Katana Art -3 to attack while on firm ground, but it actually seems less logical that way - you'd get better if you attempted something with a small penalty.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I don't particularly see why this is necessarily the case. Skill Adaptation already does several different kinds of things (see the bit about adding a parry).

Well, the Skill Adaptation perk is for adapting one or more Technique(s). From a skill that normally has that technique, to one that normally doesn't. If we can agree on this point, then I can explain why the existing Skill Adaptation perk is inappropriate for achieving what the OP wants. There are two reasons, as follows:

Firstly, the Techniques available to a combat skill are also available to the Art or Sport form, at the same default. According to the RAW, this is always the case.

Secondly, the -3 default between the combat skill and its Art and Sport forms is not a Technique default. It is a Skill default.

EDIT: I've now found the mention of a parry to which you referred. It wasn't in MA, so I couldn't see it at first. It appears to have been added in PU2. I'll admit that it does muddy the waters a little. Nevertheless, I still don't think that it fundamentally counters my argument about the intended purpose of the Skill Adaptation perk. To illustrate my point I will copy the whole sentence below (the bold text is my emphasis):

Originally Posted by Skill Adaptation p. PU17
Alternatively, you can add specific skill applications – like getting a parry based on the skill – which techniques don’t cover.

Surely we can see from this that the intention is to add one particular sub-set or function of a skill (defined as a Technique, or otherwise), where it would not normally exist. That is fundamentally not the same thing as a perk to eliminate the penalty of one Skill defaulting to another Skill, when that Skill default already exists.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Unwitting Pawn

I'm not sure how I can explain this to you pawsplay, if I have so far failed to put it across in a way that makes sense to you. I'm a bit relentless though, so I'll give it another go ;)

I think I understand you. I think you simply missed the point of my OP. You have a certain way of looking at Skill Adaptation (unlocks certain techniques). There is another way of looking at it (establishes a prerequisite and default for techniques). The point of my OP was to explore the ramifications of the second viewpoint. You can claim that your intepretation is exclusionary of any other, but that is simply not born out. Allowing a default for Kicking from Acrobatics does not simply unlock a technique; it establishes that Kicking may be performed as though Acrobatics were X skill. Otherwise, there would be nothing to base it on. Saying X can use Y technique makes sense independently only if Y technique specifies what the default is.

In the case of Skill Adaptation, the Perk unlocks the available technique, and also specifies the default. MA. p64 explains that using a Technique with Art/Combat/Sport is a special case and ordinarily techniques do not default that way.

The reason I did not title the post New Perk is not becausing I am proposing some new trait to do something differently and in addition to existing Perks. Rather I am looking at the way Art/Combat/Sport is currently defined, and by examining the effects of Skill Adaptation or Weapon Adaptation, considering whether the current configuration is the best way of handling it.

I am not proposing any sweeping changes to rules, either. In some alternate universe, MA p.64 says something else entirely and Skill Adaptation does exactly what I'm suggesting, and lists Art -> Combat as an example in addition to Acrobatic Kicks. Martial Arts is a rules extension and there is nothing in what I'm proposing that is more or less valid than what was suggested in MA based simply on the Basic Set.