Rerednaw Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monolith Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Shecky Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Hiemforth Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dust Raven Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rerednaw Posted March 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 I think KS are VERY useful... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Hiemforth Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dust Raven Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.