Does this make ANY sense?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Nope' date=' nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.[/quote']

I agree that cheapest doesn't equal best, but it's a difficult job sometimes determing which game mechanic fills a specific need. Taking your example of freezing someone in their tracks, you just just as easily use TK as you could Entangle. For being good at "smarts" skills, you could just as easily use a higher INT as you could INT Skill Levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Nope' date=' nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.[/quote']

 

While I agree there is a line where "cheapest" converts to "cheesiest", I also don't think it's beneficial for the system to have a number of ways to achieve the exact same mechanical effect at very different point costs. Two characters of equal ability ought to have the same character point cost to get there. If they don't, even the most superficial expectation of using points as a balancing factor is eliminated.

 

Given we're discussing a character who is extremely proficient at skills and tasks which require quick thinking and knowledge retention ("the effects you are looking for"), I fail to see how additional intelligence (+10 INT) is in any way less consistent with the effect than +2 skill levels with all INT skills. Really, how did you train to be better at everything that requires quick thinking and knowledge retention without enhancing your own ability to think quickly and retain knowledge?

[Talon]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

5 point INT levels are, at present, a bit silly in games without NCM. If you want the "good at skills but not observant" effect, buy lots of INT and then a "Absent Minded" Physical Limitation that gives him a PER penalty. (That's actually even better for the concept, since you can phrase the Phys. Lim in such a way as to give him good PER rolls for science-y things that no one else would notice.)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

While I agree there is a line where "cheapest" converts to "cheesiest"' date=' I also don't think it's beneficial for the system to have a number of ways to achieve the exact same mechanical effect at very different point costs. Two characters of equal ability ought to have the same character point cost to get there. If they don't, even the most superficial expectation of using points as a balancing factor is eliminated.[/quote']

Agreed. I will point out that the cases where you get massively different costs for identical functionality from two or more possible builds are very rare, and often include invalid builds (such as comparing a BOECV EB w/ IPE to Ego Attack)

 

Given we're discussing a character who is extremely proficient at skills and tasks which require quick thinking and knowledge retention ("the effects you are looking for"), I fail to see how additional intelligence (+10 INT) is in any way less consistent with the effect than +2 skill levels with all INT skills. Really, how did you train to be better at everything that requires quick thinking and knowledge retention without enhancing your own ability to think quickly and retain knowledge?

Agreed.

 

On comparing INT and Levels, the only fuctional difference is the +10 INT does four things the Levels do not: 1. Increase PER Rolls 2. Make it harder to Drain INT 3. Increases Background & Power Skills based on INT and 4. Boosts all Skills based on INT at the same time.

 

If INT levels and INT are to cost the same, they should have equal functionality, meaning either INT should do less, or levels should do more, or the levels should cost less. Until one of these things happens, I'll always buy INT over levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Agreed. I will point out that the cases where you get massively different costs for identical functionality from two or more possible builds are very rare' date=' and often include invalid builds (such as comparing a BOECV EB w/ IPE to Ego Attack)[/quote']

 

Let's not go there. BoECV iytself does more than AVLD - mental defense and costs less.

 

On comparing INT and Levels, the only fuctional difference is the +10 INT does four things the Levels do not: 1. Increase PER Rolls 2. Make it harder to Drain INT 3. Increases Background & Power Skills based on INT and 4. Boosts all Skills based on INT at the same time.

 

If INT levels and INT are to cost the same, they should have equal functionality, meaning either INT should do less, or levels should do more, or the levels should cost less. Until one of these things happens, I'll always buy INT over levels.

 

This, to me, is the core of the issue. Many of us are fond of noting a Limitation that fails to limit saves no points, and a Disadvantage which is not disadvantageous garners no points. The corollary, however, is rareley mentioned. If the player spends points, the ability purchased should carry benefits commensurate with other uses to which those points could have been put.

 

Skill levels are in a unique place. They are often inferior to purchasing stats at normal cost. But making them cheaper would make them a huge bargain in an NCM game where the stats would cost double beyond a certain level. Thus, they become more valuable, and more common, in an NCM game. Funny...those tend to be the genres where characters typically rely more on skills than enhanced characteristics and powers. From that perspective, maybe we've ot it right.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Which is why I try to find additional uses for Skill Levels as an alternative to reducing their cost. It's easier to say a Skill Level can be use to offset penalties on a greater than 1:1 ratio, or allow certain tasks to only be performed with the application of a Level (similar to Bouncing with CSLs), than it is to manage reduced costs or try to balance costs vs concepts.