How to boost multiple KSs

[Zed-F]

Supposing I have a character that I want to have multiple KSs. Fine, I buy scholar and a whack of KSs for 1 point apiece. Now suppose I want them (and only them, not my general purpose INT roll) to be at a better than 11- roll. Here's a couple possible approaches:

 

1) Buy 5-point skill levels. This seems to me to be a horrible waste of points. 5-point skill levels are appropriate if you're buying them for DEX-based skills, and maybe for INT- or PRE-based skills (ignoring the question of why you're not just boosting your INT or PRE instead). These skills all cost 2 points per level to boost individually, however, where KSs only cost one. It hardly seems fair to also charge 5 points to boost skills that cost 1 point per level individually.

 

2) Convince the GM to let you pay only 3 points for levels to boost your KSs of a particular type (i.e. AKs, KSs, SSs, etc. would all get treated separately.) You pay 2.5 times the amount of a single +1 in an INT skill to boost all of them by 1, so paying 3 times the amount of a single +1 for all Enhancable skills of a particular class doesn't seem unbalanced. However, this does technically go against the letter of the rules (and the FAQ.)

 

3) Buy them all as INT-based, then buy extra INT, only to boost KSs. Depending on how high you want to boost them and how many KSs you have, this could actually cost more than the previous ones simply due to the fact that now you're paying 2 points per KS rather than one. Still, INT only for certain classes of skills should qualify for a significant limitation. What would be a good guess for:

---- INT only to boost KSs?

---- INT only to boost KSs/AKs/CuKs/SSs/etc. (basically all the skill classes for which you can buy an enhancer to reduce its cost)?

[Hugh Neilson]

In a NCM campaign, 5 point skill levels probably works since you're looking at 10 points per +1 to buy the INT once you hit the NCM maximum.

 

In a supers campaign, this becomes too expensive for two reasons. First, KS's really aren't used as much in Supers campaigns. Let's ignore that and assume your KS's are point on for Supers and very useful.

 

Second, as you say, why would anyone pay 5 points for skill levels with all INT-based skills when they could just buy another 5 INT instead and get all the same advantages, plus 5 more INT. [i suppose Drain Skill Levels is pretty uncommon, but I don't see many INT drains out there either!]

 

What aboult buying 5 point skill levels for INT Based skills, then applying the limitation "Only for Knowledge Skills"? This eliminates all other INT based skill rolls (whcih I believe includes PER rolls), so should justify a -1 limit. Or make a case that these should be 3 point levels, which is only 1/2 point per + different anyway.

[JmOz]

In my games I have allow all KS's (Not including the AK/CK/CulK) as the 3 point skill level, same with all Sciences

[Killer Shrike]

You are looking at it backwards. General KS's are already discounted, thats why they cost 1 point per instead of 2 points per to raise.

 

If you have a problem with the pricing, as the GM allow 3 pts levels to be taken for General KS's (and other similar skill structures) or convince your GM to allow you to do so. But really, its like getting a discount on top of a discount.

[DigitalGolem]

Well, for 5pts you can get skill levels that apply to all[/] Int skills, so I would think that skill levels for Knowldge Skills, which are a subset of Int skills, should be less expensive. On the other hand, 3pt skill levels are usually defined as working for a "related group" of skills, which are usually no more than three different skills.

 

So how many different Knowledge skills are we talking about, and how closely are they related? If they're spread across a wide spectrum of subjects, and there are more than five of them, the 5pt skill level would be appropriate, and still cost-effective. Perhaps with a "KS only" limitation of -1/4, as a compromise, if the character has lots of other Int skills to which these skill levels won't[/] apply. Splitting the difference, 4pts per level. Does that work?

 

DGv3.0

[Pattern Ghost]

I agree with Killer Shrike (KS...a coincidence...I think NOT) in regards to the discount.

 

However, another way of looking at it is that 3 point levels apply to multipowers. Scholar plus a bunch of KSs looks a lot like a multipower...so, why not? It's not like the game is going to suddenly become unbalanced if a character is really good with his knowledge skills. If they were THAT useful, they'd cost more to start with.

[prestidigitator]

The description of 5-point Skill Levels do not say they can apply, for example, to "anything which is based on a Dex roll." The example given in the table says Agility skills, which would actually not apply to a Professional Skill bought based on Dex (it is still a Background Skill, even though it is based on a Characteristic roll).

 

Of course, it is pretty much up to the GM to determine what a "related group of skllls" is. And the FAQ does say something like "a skill level for Int skills can apply to your Per rolls...." Eh.

 

I actually have kind of a problem with the rule about not being able to apply Limitations to anything below 5-point SKill Levels, myself. I even find myself buying 5-point Skill Levels with Limitations such as, Only for Stealth (-1), just so that I can buy the darn thing through a focus. I'm sure the game guru's would have a fit over that, saying it's a -0 Limitation, but come on! I want the thing to be limited, and I want to give players a reason to buy it rather than just a straight 5-point Skill Level!

 

Remember, too, that a 5-point Skill Level bought for all Knowledge Skills would apply to Knowledge Skills which you also based on Int, as well as all those bought as an 11-, etc.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

However, another way of looking at it is that 3 point levels apply to multipowers. Scholar plus a bunch of KSs looks a lot like a multipower...so, why not? It's not like the game is going to suddenly become unbalanced if a character is really good with his knowledge skills. If they were THAT useful, they'd cost more to start with.

 

Hee hee. Just what I was thinking. So a player wants to be really good with KS's? OH NO!!! RULES RAPE!! YOU MUNCHKIN!!! Yeah. Right. Sheesh. If you wanted to buy some 3-pointers defined as "+1 with all Knowledge Skills" I'd be patting you on the back for being a non-powergamer roleplayer, not telling you it's technically against the rules.

 

This also makes me think of Rocky and Bullwinkle: "And now it's time for Mr. Know-It-All!"

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Arthur

Hee hee. Just what I was thinking. So a player wants to be really good with KS's? OH NO!!! RULES RAPE!! YOU MUNCHKIN!!! Yeah. Right. Sheesh. If you wanted to buy some 3-pointers defined as "+1 with all Knowledge Skills" I'd be patting you on the back for being a non-powergamer roleplayer, not telling you it's technically against the rules.

I don't know. I guess it depends on how effective you make Knowledge Skills as a GM. If they will be pretty useful, I can see how you might not want to allow 3-point levels to affect them all. Also, how much sense does it make? That you can base Knowledge Skills on Int makes them easy enough to boost (right along with all Intellect Skills). Why buy up a single Knowledge Skill when I can increase all of them for 3 points? You'd have a world full of know-it-alls, and no one who specialized. Another point: Skill Levels can apply to one task at a time. Well, I can't think of many circumstances with Knowledge Skills when I won't be able to use all my Skill Levels on every roll.

[Black Rose]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

I actually have kind of a problem with the rule about not being able to apply Limitations to anything below 5-point SKill Levels, myself. I even find myself buying 5-point Skill Levels with Limitations such as, Only for Stealth (-1), just so that I can buy the darn thing through a focus. I'm sure the game guru's would have a fit over that, saying it's a -0 Limitation, but come on! I want the thing to be limited, and I want to give players a reason to buy it rather than just a straight 5-point Skill Level!

 

I've had this problem myself. Granted, I can understand not wanting limited 2-point CSLs and SLs running around (they'd be what, like one point?) but when you really think about it, most 3-pointers are really just limited 5-pointers; e.g., 1 5-point CSL, only for OCV (-1/2).

 

I find that the requirement is somewhat hollow, since you're gonna make the 5-pointer go down with more lims anyway.

[pinecone]

In super level campains I don't see this come up much...I'd have no problem with someone buying 3 point levels ,but most skill monger Supers buy 10 point Overall levels instead cause their so super....in a heroic level I think I'd consider 3 pointers as a sug-group booster such as "deception skills" (say disguise,conversation,seduction and mimic) as a 3 point group and I don't think the game would explode.....

[dugfromthearth]

3 point level

 

It seems to me to be a tight group of related skills - all KS. So I would go with a 3 point level.

 

That is 3 times as expensive as raising just one KS, so there is still a huge advantage to specializing.

 

Another way to look at it is that you are buying scholar multiple times but it doesn't reduce the base cost, just gives +1's to the skill (which is worth +1 pt in each skill, the same bonus scholar gives you). Since Scholar is presumably based upon some construction, and this is less effective then scholar (since it doesn't reduce the minimum cost) ipso facto it must be fine

[DigitalGolem]

Re: 3 point level

 

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

It seems to me to be a tight group of related skills - all KS. So I would go with a 3 point level.

 

That is 3 times as expensive as raising just one KS, so there is still a huge advantage to specializing.

 

Another way to look at it is that you are buying scholar multiple times but it doesn't reduce the base cost, just gives +1's to the skill (which is worth +1 pt in each skill, the same bonus scholar gives you). Since Scholar is presumably based upon some construction, and this is less effective then scholar (since it doesn't reduce the minimum cost) ipso facto it must be fine

 

I agree with almost all of this, but have you really considered whether "all knowledge skills" is a tight group of related skills? How far apart can different KS's get?

 

KS: NASA

KS: Wicca

KS: Broadway Musicals

 

Would you consider this a "tight group of related skills"? I hope not. On the other hand, if a character does have a group of related knowledge skills, the 3pt skill levels would be just fine.

 

thanx heaps,

 

DGv3.0

[Tech]

Where are you coming from?

 

I'm trying to get an understanding of exactly where people are coming from in this so bear with me. Are you saying you shouldn't have to pay 5 pts to apply to a skill because you'd rather spend them on a power? Is it because you think the 5 pt skill is erroneously used and the 3 pt skill is closer to what should be used? Is it because you think KS skills are not as useful as skills such as Stealth? Are there other reasons? I've read the posts but don't see the base reasons.

 

Okay, having said that, I think 5 pt skill levels are fine. I've got players who utilize their skills in my games, even that KS: Plumbing 8 or less. I think some of the argument for how much should be paid for that level depends on the usefulness of the skills that a character has. Does your adventure purposely use the skills characters have purchased? Do the players use the skills? If skills are largely not used, that's a campaign issue. I can see your suggestion of 3 pt per level but I'll stick with 5 pt skill levels. They can be used with AK, PS, KS or regular skills such as Animal Handling, Shadowing, etc.

[pinecone]

I beleive the objection to 5 point levels is you (at least in a supers game ) could simply buy up the stat and gain a +1 and other benefits. So The Sage is better off buying up his/her Int than buying 5 pointers with all KS's. I myself am of two minds on this as I seldom see it come up. I usually am totally fine with a wide definition of a "narrow" group because of this and if "Batclone the dark avenger" wants 3 point levels with "crime fighting skillz" I have no problem if that turns out to be 5 or so othgerwise unrelated skills. In a Heroic level game I'd probibly expect the skills to be more cloely related and maybe limit it to 3 or 4 skills to meet the "Narrow focus" definition....

[dugfromthearth]

all ks skills are closely related, because they are ks skills

 

if you talked to a professor and they knew about the writings of Plato, theories of quantum physics, history of England, or

 

KS: NASA

KS: Wicca

KS: Broadway Musicals

 

you would not find it that strange. They just read a lot of books.

 

Now Professional Skills are not a tight group. Those require actual experience. That is a huge difference.

 

If I talkd to a professor and they had knowledge about working at NASA, were a practicing wiccan, and had professional experience putting on broadway musicals. Then I would be surprised and think they had led an interesting life.

 

KS means they read about it, studied about it, or heard about it. Studying lots of different things is a tight group. The group is studying, not the actual subjects.

 

PS means actually doing something, so the actual areas of experience matter for whether or not it is a tight group.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

Now Professional Skills are not a tight group. Those require actual experience. That is a huge difference.

...

KS means they read about it, studied about it, or heard about it. Studying lots of different things is a tight group. The group is studying, not the actual subjects.

 

PS means actually doing something, so the actual areas of experience matter for whether or not it is a tight group.

I disagree completely. Knowledge can and often is gained through experience as much if not more than through books. The human mind (at least in real life) can only contain so much without direct experience and point of reference. Even if you memorize a bunch of facts, that does not necessarily mean you can apply them in a useful manner to a situation, or even know if they apply to a situation. Why do you think education requires homework (the good assignments being those which give you practical experience in how to use the knowledge, not just the knowlege itself); even classes which are in large part centered around factual subjects (e.g. some but not all History).

 

if you talked to a professor and they knew about the writings of Plato, theories of quantum physics, history of England, or

 

KS: NASA

KS: Wicca

KS: Broadway Musicals

 

you would not find it that strange. They just read a lot of books.

I wouldn't find this strange if the professor knew a little about all of these things. If (s)he knew enough to be an expert and teach all of them?! That would be a different matter. Remember that professors do specialize very highly in their fields. Otherwise, you would not be a "History Professor," you would be just a "Professor," who happens to be teaching History at the moment, but could just as easily go next door and teach about the finer nuances of Entomology (okay, maybe this or both could be argued to be a Science Skill, but the same arguments can apply--and the line is often fuzzy anyway).

 

Remember, too, that (normal) "Professors," would probably be bought as people with most of their points spent toward KSs, SSs, and PSs--and then only to be highly specialized.