Price for a Universal Talent?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

That strikes me as overcomplicated. Again, we should probably use jack of all trades as a model, as it's attempting to do something similar. The difference is that where Jack of all trades only adds to default roles, this would only add to trained rolls.

That's such a very different use case that it winds up being a really bad model, but that winds up being "1 point in all skills costs 60 points" which would put our general +1 to all skills at a whopping 240.

[dataweaver]

Eh. Jack of All Trades sets +1 to everything at 50/level, and applies a -80% Limitation “only for defaults”. I'd put “only for skills you have points in” at somewhere between a little more than -20% putting it between 35 to 40. If you want to benefit both, take Jack of All Trades and “Omni-Competence”, the former for the untrained stuff and the latter for the trained stuff.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

That strikes me as overcomplicated. Again, we should probably use jack of all trades as a model, as it's attempting to do something similar. The difference is that where Jack of all trades only adds to default roles, this would only add to trained rolls.

Hm... Maybe 10-20 percent off DX, IQ and HT for a total of 40-45 points

[dataweaver]

I would put it at at least minus 20%. You don't want Omni competence Plus jack of all trades costing more than just buying the attributes; and it should probably cost a bit less.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I would put it at at least minus 20%. You don't want Omni competence Plus jack of all trades costing more than just buying the attributes; and it should probably cost a bit less.

My preference is that it costs exactly the same.

I would note that in practice the easy way to do a universal talent is to take a modular ability with one slot and a 4 point pool, and it's ridiculously cheap for what it does.

[dataweaver]

-20%, then. Though I could also see an argument for -30%.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

-20%, then. Though I could also see an argument for -30%.

-20% means "does not apply to half of all uses". Do you really think more than half of all rolls using attributes are not made against a skill?

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

Always. And the problem with your build, as you can see, is that if you try to build a +1 to all skills always that way, it ends up being far more expensive than +1 to all attributes, which is a simpler build and ends up being more advantageous anyway.

Even as you've built it here, it's one point less expensive than +1 to IQ, +1 to DX minus speed, and +1 to HT minus speed and FP, which is also far more valuable, so this Modular Ability is plainly not the answer.

If you think the premise is unworthy of discussion, you don't have to discuss it.

But I'm curious how people would price this. I could see +1 to all skills being used in a Sorcery spell or a magic item, for starters.

The problem is with the brief, or unspoken implicit requirements within it. Talents are not for what you're looking for, and you don't like the pricing of doing with with Attributes. Oh well, GURPS won't let you price true invulnerability either.

[dataweaver]

Originally Posted by Anthony

-20% means "does not apply to half of all uses". Do you really think more than half of all rolls using attributes are not made against a skill?

No, but I also don't buy that minus 20% eliminate half of the uses. I know that what is officially said; but that doesn't work for me.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

No, but I also don't buy that minus 20% eliminate half of the uses. I know that what is officially said; but that doesn't work for me.

Even if you assume -20% eliminates 20% of all uses, "skills only" is still not -20%; DX and IQ rolls that either do not involve a skill, or cannot be replaced by a skill if you have that skill, are extremely rare.

The core problem with this concept is that it's trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Talents are intended to be narrower than attributes.

Now, I think this is trying to fix a real problem with GURPS: building a character who is broadly competent (including both DX and IQ) rather than tightly focused does not work well. However, I would not try to patch around it by inventive cost accounting with the talent system, I'd just house rule the base system, probably by totally rewriting attribute costs.