Combat Mastery Talent

[AlexanderHowl]

I would find that acceptable too, though you would need some way of learning cinematic skills like Zen Archery. A more realistic version might instead have Camouflage, Bow, Fast-Draw (Arrow), Observation, and Stealth, creating archers for stealth and sniping rather than creating merry men.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I would find that acceptable too, though you would need some way of learning cinematic skills like Zen Archery. A more realistic version might instead have Camouflage, Bow, Fast-Draw (Arrow), Observation, and Stealth, creating archers for stealth and sniping rather than creating merry men.

Note that Talents where the theme is '5-6 skills that a character needs for a profession' are much less balanced than Talents where the skills are logically related.

I don't have a problem with Talents that include combat skills or, indeed Experienced (All combat skills) at 15/level and Melee Talent or Missile Talent at 10/level.

It's custom-made 5/level Talents that include every skill important to a character concept I look askance at and prefer that there is a good justification for how these skills and only these skills fit thematically together, so an aptitude for them makes sense.

[AlexanderHowl]

I do not necessarily agree. Allure is a great talent for a singer and dancer (or certain other professions...), Goodwife works well for a cook or seamstess, Talker works well for a detective, etc. Some people are going to be more talented at a particular job than others, even if they have equivalent DX or IQ, and I do think that it reflects reality to have every major character possess 20 CP in assorted 5 CP Talents.

[Gnome]

To be inclusive of all play styles and game types and to avoid point crocks, I would say skills in a Talent should be either thematically or realistically connected.

It's potentially a problem if I take "My Swashbuckler Talent" for [5/level], which includes Acrobatics, Brawling, Cloak, Public Speaking, Rapier, and Stealth. These are just six skills I want to make my character, and they aren't really linked (or to the extent they're thematically linked, the "theme" should include ten or so more skills as part of that theme).

But I have no problem with Fencing Talent (Fast-Draw (Sword), Main-Gauche, Rapier, Saber, Smallsword) or Slick Talker (Carousing, Fast-Talk, Intimidation, Public Speaking, Sex Appeal, Streetwise), or even Backdoor Man (Carousing, Climbing, Fast-Talk, Savoire-Faire (High Society), Sex Appeal, Stealth). Fencing Talent and Slick Talker include realistically linked skills (if you're good at one of these it makes logical sense you might be good at the others). Backdoor Man includes thematically linked skills for a Don Juan.

Many published Talents include only realistically linked skills (pretty much all the ones in Basic). Many are merely thematically linked (many Talents from DF or Action, for example). But there are no published examples (as far as I know) of "these are just skills I want to have."

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I have not had a game where PCs are less than 200 CP since 4e came out, and I never apply disadvantage limits to NPCs, so disadvantage limits are sort of an abstraction for my games (since the suggested disadvantage limit is 50% a character CP total). The point of the matter is though that HT is more easily exploitable than any other attribute. For example, I could make a character with HT 20, Basic Speed -2.00, Susceptible (Disease) 5, and Susceptible (Poison) 5, and the character would be leagues better off than a character with HT 12, despite the two packages costing the same amount. The former character still have a bonus FP+8, +8 against HT threats (+3 against Disease and Poison), and +8 to HT skills. Yes, I have used 80 CP of my disadvantage limit, but it does not matter because they are 'free' disadvantages that do not hinder my character to any measurable degree.

All you're really showing is that Susceptible is over (under?) priced. If you take a high enough HT, Susceptible becomes meaningless. Of course, this is neglecting the extra rolls that Susceptible demands for trace contacts. A more reasonable disadvantage would replace a penalty to HT with a fixed value and a flat price (i.e. for -20 points, you always resist poison at HT 7 and must also roll for trace contact with poison, though this would also run into the problem of people selling down their HT too...)

Besides that, any silly build like the one outlined in the quote is just going to run into "No", as it's clearly broken.

[Hide]

Originally Posted by Gnome

(...) It's potentially a problem if I take "My Swashbuckler Talent" for [5/level], which includes Acrobatics, Brawling, Cloak, Public Speaking, Rapier, and Stealth. These are just six skills I want to make my character, and they aren't really linked (or to the extent they're thematically linked, the "theme" should include ten or so more skills as part of that theme) (...)

When I started playing GURPS I designed character talents like these!

As pointed by eevee, the materials are kind of dissuasive around the matter; perhaps due to game balance. So when I play, such talents are often banned (if I am not the GM) because they are seen as point-crocks.

When I GM, if a player makes an effort to write a decent background story, I let them have such talents. “I was destined for this” is enough justification for me if the player wrote a compelling story about their PC. I do evaluate such talents and make adjustments if required, but I would allow them; if something like this happens:

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's custom-made 5/level Talents that include every skill important to a character concept I look askance at and prefer that there is a good justification for how these skills and only these skills fit thematically together, so an aptitude for them makes sense.

Finally,

As I see it, talents including combat skills or “seemingly unrelated skills” help players build characters with less strain and perhaps non-linearly:

If I had access to such talents, I could spare 20 CP in a “level 4, 5 skill talent” for the stuff which best describes the utility of my character. This would save me hours of balancing skills and attributes, and I could invest to my PC by spending CP on hobby/background skills which are not campaign related but enrich my character (i.e. jewelry if you are an astronaut in a real-world-based campaign).

Also I think it is more feasible finding a group of talented people at doing something, than a group of people with DX, IQ, HT, etc. above the average.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Gnome

To be inclusive of all play styles and game types and to avoid point crocks...

Pick one or the other, you can't do both, because what one person considers a point crock, I consider perfectly valid and desirable.

[Anthony]

Talents are point crocks when they cover skills with low redundancy. A talent that covers 6 melee weapon skills for 5p/level is unlikely to be unbalanced, since melee skills are mostly redundant with one another. A talent that covers 5 melee skills and stealth is more problematic; while fighting your way past guards and sneaking past guards solve the same general class of problem, there are a bunch of situations where one or the other is nonviable. A Thief talent that covers Shortsword, Stealth, Traps, Lock-Picking, Fast-Talk, and Merchant is thematic enough but should probably get a response of throwing things at the person who suggests it (looking at the talents in DFRPG, Forest Guardian is a point crock, the other talents are decent but not broken).

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Anthony

A Thief talent that covers Shortsword, Stealth, Traps, Lock-Picking, Fast-Talk, and Merchant is thematic enough but should probably get a response of throwing things at the person who suggests it (looking at the talents in DFRPG, Forest Guardian is a point crock, the other talents are decent but not broken).

What? Munchkinism is perfectly thematic and in the spirit of DF.

This is part of the problem I have with this "point crock" nonsense. The other part is the strong stench of badwrongfunism.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

What? Munchkinism is perfectly thematic and in the spirit of DF.

This is part of the problem I have with this "point crock" nonsense. The other part is the strong stench of badwrongfunism.

For DF I definitely agree.

As I see it this for GURPS in general the issue isn't about badwrongfun, but about having a common ground to discuss things. While the basic rule is still "do what fits your group", every group is different and in threads not focused on a specific group/game style it is advantageous to keep to the more general rules and guidelines from the books. Those rules are still what every GURPS based campaign uses as their foundation for gameplay mechanics.

One of the DF guidelines is "embrace your inner munchkin, class & race talents are fine" while the Basic Set guideline for Talents is essentially "'class' and race talents are probably not fine".