Does this make ANY sense?

[Soleil Noir]

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

 

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills, INCLUDING the Background Skills, and it's not considered "unbalancing"! I asked Mr. Long where the imbalance was, and wasn't this simply promoting stat inflation, and got the standard "I don't answer game design/philosophy" response.

 

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?

 

And yes, I know that I'm completely at liberty to disregard Mr. Long and play the game as I see fit, thanks very much. I'm just wondering: since Steve won't, does anyone else here see his point of view and can make the case as to how 5 point Levels boosting background skills is unbalancing, but 5 points spent on INT to do the same thing isn't?

[Chimpira]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Quite frankly you already know that you can handle the game in anyway that you see fit. I read the posts and Mister Long was really polite in his answer to you. I understand that you might be frustrated but if you do not like the way something is presented then you change it. We are in DOJ's house and I find it in bad taste to make a thread for a gripe. I am not trying to start a fight or anything but if you ask a question sometimes you are not going to like the answer.

[Rapier]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Eh.

 

I don't see a problem with it. I would let it into my games.

[Publius]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Ditto. If you feel that way, pump your INT.

 

Unbalancing is how I would label that. Better yet, get yourself an 8 point General Skill Level and be able to bump any skill, only a few points more. Heck, buy it with a limitation that it can only be used when the individual has a clear head (i.e. non-combat situations, not too tired, not in imminent threat) and it will come in at around that many points anyway.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

To get the +5 INT to work, you'd need to buy all your background skills at the 3 point level, or the 2 point level with and apprpriate Skill Enhancer (Scientist, Traveller, etc).

 

If you let the 5 point levels add to those skills, you are saving points that would otherwise need to be spent on those skill enhancers.

 

In a campaign with NCM in place, those 5 point skill levels are more of a bargain.

[Rapier]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Oh. Wait.

 

Are we talking about a skill with no Characteristic backing (eg General) or are we talking about a skill based upon INT? If the skill is based upon INT then its not much of a problem. If the skill is a General skill and NOT based upon INT...not a chance. You first have to bump up those skills to get them based upon INT.

 

Maybe I misunderstood all of that.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Oh. Wait.

 

Are we talking about a skill with no Characteristic backing (eg General) or are we talking about a skill based upon INT? If the skill is based upon INT then its not much of a problem. If the skill is a General skill and NOT based upon INT...not a chance. You first have to bump up those skills to get them based upon INT.

 

Maybe I misunderstood all of that.

 

With Characteristic backing I don't see a problem; if it's a General background skill, Steve's ruling makes sense.

[Rapier]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

With Characteristic backing I don't see a problem; if it's a General background skill' date=' Steve's ruling makes sense.[/quote']

 

That was my thought too. There is a difference between background skills and Background skills.

[David Johnston]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

 

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills,?

 

Only the ones he actually had. The 8- skills would stay at 8- since Intelligence is worthless when it comes to faking it. Which, come to think of it, is a gripe I have with the system.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Only the ones he actually had. The 8- skills would stay at 8- since Intelligence is worthless when it comes to faking it. Which' date=' come to think of it, is a gripe I have with the system.[/quote']

 

Try this option from Ultimate Skill: Untrained skill use is 4+CHA/5 for any skill the GM decides can be used untrained, 6+CHA/5 for Everyman Skills. Now the brilliant character can fake it without spending points. No skill levels may be applied, but other skill modifiers might (time, circumstances, etc) at the GMs option.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Only the ones he actually had. The 8- skills would stay at 8- since Intelligence is worthless when it comes to faking it. Which' date=' come to think of it, is a gripe I have with the system.[/quote']

 

To clarify my own comments, I would envision a skill level with INT based skill rolls only to enhance rolls that would have been enhanced by having a higher INT. Neither a 1 point Familiarity nor a 2 point 11-skill would qualify.

 

That said, I see no reason you couldn't buy levels with all Familiarities or with all Background Skills for 5 points, although they are only cost effective if you have 6+ such skills (more for familiarities since you could go from 8- to 11- for 1 point each).

 

Try this option from Ultimate Skill: Untrained skill use is 4+CHA/5 for any skill the GM decides can be used untrained' date=' 6+CHA/5 for Everyman Skills. Now the brilliant character can fake it without spending points. No skill levels may be applied, but other skill modifiers might (time, circumstances, etc) at the GMs option.[/quote']

 

I can see this as a viable option, but I think it needs to extend to Familiarities and 2 point 11- skills. If Richard Reed has a 28 INT, his roll shouldn't go down by 2 when he buys a Familiarity.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I can see this as a viable option, but I think it needs to extend to Familiarities and 2 point 11- skills. If Richard Reed has a 28 INT, his roll shouldn't go down by 2 when he buys a Familiarity.

 

Fair dinkum. How about, under that system, a 1 point Familiarity gives you 6+CHA/5 (7+CHA/5 for an Everyman skill), a 2 point Familiarity gives you 7+CHA/5 (8+CHA/5 for an Everyman), and a 3 point skill works as it always has.

 

2 point "General" skills remain unchanged.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Fair dinkum. How about, under that system, a 1 point Familiarity gives you 6+CHA/5 (7+CHA/5 for an Everyman skill), a 2 point Familiarity gives you 7+CHA/5 (8+CHA/5 for an Everyman), and a 3 point skill works as it always has.

 

2 point "General" skills remain unchanged.

 

I'd change the 2 point general to match a 2 point Familiarity.

The concern with this approach is that it's much cheaper to buy the stat up than to buy full skill in a large number of skills. I can see potential builds where buying more than a familiarity may make no sense, and even paying for a familiarity may be pointless if the skill can be used untrained. However, that comes down to campaign flavour.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

 

The concern with this approach is that it's much cheaper to buy the stat up than to buy full skill in a large number of skills. I can see potential builds where buying more than a familiarity may make no sense, and even paying for a familiarity may be pointless if the skill can be used untrained. However, that comes down to campaign flavour.

 

The point of a change like this is to allow stats to mean more; this naturally starts to skew the skill system more towards high stats. If the GM does not intend that, he shouldn't be using this system.