Cost of skills (increasing them) why?

[Rerednaw]

I've been reading through the 5E rules and noticed that some skills cost 1 point to raise and others cost 2 points to raise per level. The example here refers for Knowledge skills:

Page 41, FRED: "Two Character points...gives the character and 11-..."

Page 42, FRED: "...Alternatively, a character can base a skill on INT for 3 character points... In either case, each +1 to the skill roll costs 1 Character Point."

This makes KS (and PS and SS) cheaper than standard 3/2 skills.

I guess I'd prefer to either see a +1/1 or +1/2 as a standard. And I know as a GM I can rule by default, but I wanted to know what the reason was. Was it grandfathered in?

Anyone?

Cheers.

[Lord Liaden]

My reasoning has been that KS, PS and SS tend to have a smaller effect or lesser range of applicability "in game" than skills like Stealth or Disguise; they have virtually no combat-related effects, and are rarely the primary Skill used against an opponent in a Skill vs. Skill contest.

[Monolith]

The cost difference deal with the fact that KS and PS skills are generally less useful to a player than a standard skill. While these skills do add "flavor" and some basic information, they do not generally affect play to any great degree.

[Uncle Shecky]

All the background skills (see FREd, p. 30-31) are +1 per 1 point, and they always have been that way. The first background skills were introduced in Champions II (1982), and they were +1/1 point back then too. I think LL is right about the reason: the skills are less applicable to combat.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Background Skills aren't perceived as being as generally useful as other Skills. Also, you can buy a Background Skill for 2 points for an 11- roll, and it would seem counter-intuitive for a +1 to the roll to cost as much as the Skill itself cost. I'm not sure what you mean by "grandfathered in," but if you mean, "Has this always been the cost of +1 to Background Skills?" then the answer is yes. :)

[Dust Raven]

My take is this. All the "usefull" skills are listed and are based on a characteristic (or are skill levels or martial art maneuvers). Then there are the "create your own" skills that fill in the gaps in a character's knowledge and expertise. Of these create your own varity, 5E offers two varieties: Background Skills and the Power skill.

Background Skills are the gap fillers that specialize a character's knowledge and training, and as such only coast +1/1 to increase.

Power Skills are the gap fillers that provide us with a way to create new "usefull" skills that are equal in caliber to the main listed skills. A classic example would be the Magic Skill used in many Fantasy Hero campaigns.

[Rerednaw]

Say your character has made a practice of studying supertypes or secret organizations all his life. He collects documentation and any reports or clues to their habits, practices, tactics and weaknesses. (Maybe he was in the records and research division of UNTIL or PRIMUS)

KS: Superheros
KS: UNTIL
KS: Supervillains
KS: Supervillain weaknesses.
KS: Supervillain main abilities\powers.
KS: PSI
KS: DEMON
KS: VIPER
KS: VIPER (local nest)

The list goes on but wouldn't these knowledge skills be of a great benefit?

For example:

Oh yeah, that happens to be Supervillain X, his main abilities of force field manipulation stem from that glowing amulet around his neck, but he's got a weakness for redheads...wielding sharp nasty pointy things.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Derek Hiemforth]

No one said Background Skills aren't useful. It was said that they're not perceived as being as useful as other Skills, or as useful in as wide a variety of situations.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've occasionally thought about house ruling that all noncombat skills (except for maybe Stealth, Climbing, Disguise, one or two others) are 2 for base and 1 for +1, and make all background skills based on a CHA.

[Dust Raven]

Or look at is this way:

Which is more usefull: A full knowledge of acrobatic maneuvers and how to correctly perform them...or the actual skill in doing so?

Knowing about types of tracks and tell-tale signs of passage through the wilderness...or the ability to follow those tracks and signs and have an idea of where they are headed?

Knowing the answers to hundreds of riddles and mind twisters, or being able to solve new ones through deduction and reasoning?

The point costs of Background skills reflect the difference in usefullness.