05-23-2014, 06:01 AM | #31 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
|
Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
Quote:
I do think part of the way forward, for GURPS, is to formally and explicitly reduce Human variety, so that superHuman is defined to start not at DX/IQ 21 but at something like DX/IQ 16. And keep in mind, I'm talking about a change to the character creation rules, not a change specifically to the player character creation rules. (HT might well benefit from a similar reduction in variety span.) Quote:
GURPS uses a different skill scale, where skills don't start from zero, and furthermore where a +1 bonus is not so meaningful. But if one wanted to encourage the putting CPs into skills, one could say that any character gets a free +2 specialization once he has put 8 CP into a skill. Possibly even a 2nd one at 20 CP although I'd advise caution here, simply for reasons of character sheet space and readability. A specialization can be anything that isn't the core use of the skill, for instance generic attacking isn't a valid specialization for a weapon skill, but generic parry might be. A particular form of attacking could also be, such as one form of All-Out-Attack or possibly even all forms. Or any attack that requires expenditure of Extra Effort FP. The downside of that is that it creates a break point that players will want to reach, but then once they've reached it, they don't have much incentive to continue going further. |
||
05-23-2014, 07:36 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Platform Zero, Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
Quote:
|
|
05-23-2014, 08:45 AM | #33 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Another idea for the old skill VS Attribute conundrum
Quote:
Quote:
I do think that such a bulk discount is sometimes warranted; but that’s when you’ve got a set of related skills, such that facts and/or muscle memory learned for one of them carries over to the others. For that sort of solution, you should look at Talents for inspiration; for instance, I’ve used a house rule that re-envisions the concept of Wildcard Skills as “bulk costs for sets of interrelated skills”: determine whether the set of skills is narrow (equivalent in scope to a 5-point Talent), standard (comparable to a 10-point Talent), or broad (comparable t a 15-point Talent), then buy the Wildcard Skill with a cost multiplier of ×2 if narrow, ×3 if standard, or ×4 if broad. From that point on, the usual Wildcard Skills rules apply. To give Techniques a reasonable price, one option is to say that a single point is enough to raise it from its minimum to its maximum (or by +3 if it doesn’t have a maximum). This makes Techniques much faster to improve than is currently the case; but IMHO, they should be much easier to learn than they are. If I was willing to engage in fractional point accounting, I’d divide the cost of Techniques by five. |
||
Tags |
alternate gurps, attribute, attributes, house rule, skill cost, skills |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|