Are proliferating perks a danger to GURPS?

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Though nobody took me up on discussing *which ones* are overpowered last time. I think there are a dozen or so, but most of them are fine.

I can't think of any that are overpowered OTTOMH, though I suppose I could find a few if I looked through Power-Ups 2. Which ones jump out at you?

[Kale]

I'm a fan of limiting combat-related perks to style limitations and related skills. For instance in High Tech I think the gun-related perks were limited to 1 perk to X points spent in style/firearm related skills. This means that only 'masters' or at least very experienced PCs can get a large number of perks.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Lupo

... limiting how many a character can buy (according to his "class" or style) is *very* D&D-esque.

I very much agree with that. If they need to be class- or experience- or maximum-number limited, it suggests to me that they are a departure from the ICWIC philosophy.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I can't think of any that are overpowered OTTOMH, though I suppose I could find a few if I looked through Power-Ups 2. Which ones jump out at you?

The ones that seem like possible problems are Improvised Weapons, Pistol Fist, Power Grappling, Intuitive Repairman, Autotrance, Focused (Task), Extended Hearing, Influence Shticks, Attribute Substitution, Dabbler, Base, Charms, Rest in Pieces, Extra Option, Rules Exemption, Area Spell Mastery, Huge Subjects, Improvised Items, Improvised Magic, Limited Energy Reserve, Mana Compensation, Psychic Guidance, Shortcut to Power, Spell Bond and Wizardly Dabbler.

Some of them are iffy more because they invade the territory of existing stuff more than because the price is way off, and most are OK at least under some circumstances.

I suppose the worse of them are:
Attribute Substitution - for the internal contradiction, it has to apply to rolls where the GM thinks shifting the attribute makes sense, but not enough sense to do it for everybody. It's like its a refugee from the 3e rules, where shifting attribute bases wasn't a core rule.
Base - it *needs* a link to wealth, and a property nobody can link to you is clearly more plausible in some settings than others
Charms and Shortcuts to Power - spells really are partly balanced by prerequisite chain, which is after all why you can use prerequisite counts for improvised magic and the results aren't too silly. I don't necessarily agree with the prerequisite chains or using their counts for anything, but there are too many spells that totally undercut advantages if you can get them even on a somewhat unreliable basis for 3 points (spell skill, Charm and one spell Magery 0 to cast them). And aren't these the same Perk?
Area Spell Mastery - Partial areas make me nervous enough in the first place. I'd feel better about if you had to pay the cost you would for ending the spell for each change.
Mana Compensation - are you kidding!? Mana Enhancer is bad enough.

Extra Option and Rules Exemption are clearly abusable if you read too much into them, but also pretty clearly more in the nature of discussions of how to invent new ones than finished Perks. Improvised Magic is an example of an Extra Option Perk that probably shouldn't be allowed, since it's quite a signficant advantage to have that option switched on for you and not for everybody.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Charms and Shortcuts to Power - spells really are partly balanced by prerequisite chain, which is after all why you can use prerequisite counts for improvised magic and the results aren't too silly. I don't necessarily agree with the prerequisite chains or using their counts for anything, but there are too many spells that totally undercut advantages if you can get them even on a somewhat unreliable basis for 3 points (spell skill, Charm and one spell Magery 0 to cast them). And aren't these the same Perk?

I've always agreed to the whole Prerequisites doesn't balance spells idea, but this got me thinking. A non-mage-type character who normally doesn't use a lot of FP could get a big advantage by picking one useful high-prequiste spell like Missile Shield and get it up to a reasonable level far to easily.

When fighters can get ranged-weapon-proof for just a handful of points... chances are they will be quite a bit better than their points would indicate.
...unless all foes 'for some reason' never attacks him with ranged weapons after the PC buys the trait. Unless it is with depleted Necronium arrows. Right.

[Tommi_Kovala]

Depends on your gaming group's "perk culture". I like to use perks like Photogenic (+3 bonus to Photography skill if you want him to look good in a photo, -3 if you want him to look bad) and Impressive Scar (+1 reaction bonus with war veterans). These are, IMO, marginal enough to justify the minimal cost. They set the overall power level and it rubs off to new players who are shopping for Perks.

[Lord Carnifex]

Originally Posted by Tommi_Kovala

Depends on your gaming group's "perk culture". I like to use perks like Photogenic (+3 bonus to Photography skill if you want him to look good in a photo, -3 if you want him to look bad) and Impressive Scar (+1 reaction bonus with war veterans). These are, IMO, marginal enough to justify the minimal cost. They set the overall power level and it rubs off to new players who are shopping for Perks.

I agree. A dusting of "not-quite-worth-the-one-point" quirks fills out a setting and gives a sense of uniqueness to characters. Where I try to draw the line is when Perks are being used to shortcut the system, in place of full-fledged advantages, skills, talents, or techniques. The choice to buy a quirk should never feel forced, but should be a choice of "how do I make this character unique among all the other fighters/mages/martial artists who are similar?" Perks I've offered in the past include things like Looks good in uniform, Captain of a starship, True believer, Liked by cats, and so on.

My problem is not with the abundance of Perks, but making sure their power level is capped.

[Phaelen Bleux]

I really like the idea of Perks for flavoring a PC, but 1 per 25 points seems like overkill. I've cut players down to 1 per 100 points--just one or two per PC to fill in the cracks--not 6+ to design to concept.

[Phaelen Bleux]

Originally Posted by malloyd

True. Though nobody took me up on discussing *which ones* are overpowered last time. I think there are a dozen or so, but most of them are fine.

The ones that worry me the most are the ones that give +1 to a skill (like Weapon Bond, for example). It high skill levels, the PC gets another pip on the dice for just 1 point when it should have cost significantly more to raise the skill level.

[Plasmabunny]

Originally Posted by Phaelen Bleux

The ones that worry me the most are the ones that give +1 to a skill (like Weapon Bond, for example). It high skill levels, the PC gets another pip on the dice for just 1 point when it should have cost significantly more to raise the skill level.

Given that boosting the skill by 4 with gadget limitations; Theif must win Quick contest of ST -30%, breakable (DR 3-5) -15%, possibly with Machine -5% and the Unique -25% limitation, total -75%... works out to the same (or similiar for slightly different gear) cost, it probably isn't as bad as it seems.