What's in a (skill) name?

Just got your book, can't find a copy, have a cool adventure idea or story? Chat about it here.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
ZenFox42
Veteran
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:25 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#21 Postby ZenFox42 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:05 am

I usually merge Swimming and Climbing into "Athletics" as well.

I go the other way with Investigation, keeping the name but moving searching, shadowing, etc. into it so that it more fully reflects its name. This also keeps every PC who of necessity has at least a pretty good Notice from being able to automatically "search" a room for hidden clues and treasures and such.

I too use Gambling to cover bluffing, cheating, and disguise, calling it Deception.

I change Lockpicking to Security, and have it cover setting up and getting around any locks and traps. It's Agility-based in low-tech worlds, but Smarts-based in worlds with electronics.
Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases
Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating
And:historical tech levels,generic sci-fi tech levels

User avatar
JamesG
Seasoned
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Monmoth County, NJ

Re: Re:

#22 Postby JamesG » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:00 pm

Jounichi wrote:I've yet to play in a game where climbing and swimming were important enough to consider rolling into a single skill (hell, they've barely come up for me at all)


Not even 50 Fathoms? I generally favor combining Climbing and Swimming into Athletics but I'm thinking of not doing that for 50 Fathoms. I figure between much of the world being underwater and players typically on ships with rigging to climb, that is one setting where each skill might see regular use.

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Re:

#23 Postby ValhallaGH » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:14 pm

JamesG wrote:I generally favor combining Climbing and Swimming into Athletics but I'm thinking of not doing that for 50 Fathoms. I figure between much of the world being underwater and players typically on ships with rigging to climb, that is one setting where each skill might see regular use.

You figure correctly.
Not drowning is a big deal, and there are enough opportunities to use Swimming to get a tactical or financial advantage that it is a worthwhile investment.
Climbing also proves useful, moving about rigging, getting to useful locations, reaching enemies in high locations (rigging, trees, cliffs, etc.), and so forth. Not as useful as Swimming, but useful.

Most of the time, neither skill comes up exclusively enough for players to care about training, even if they're folded into a single Athletics skill. Sure, they can go Climbing up a cliff, or they can hike eight miles up that trail; they can be Swimming across the river, or they can hike to the ferry. As in real life, player characters can usually avoid having to climb or swim. Which means that those Skills aren't competitive with Fighting, Shooting, Notice, Stealth, or cool Edges.
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

User avatar
Jounichi
Legendary
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Re:

#24 Postby Jounichi » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:27 pm

JamesG wrote:
Jounichi wrote:I've yet to play in a game where climbing and swimming were important enough to consider rolling into a single skill (hell, they've barely come up for me at all)


Not even 50 Fathoms? I generally favor combining Climbing and Swimming into Athletics but I'm thinking of not doing that for 50 Fathoms. I figure between much of the world being underwater and players typically on ships with rigging to climb, that is one setting where each skill might see regular use.

Even then I'd consider keeping them separate. Some races come with a d6 swimming for free, and there are edges which affect both in different ways.
"Rush not in to fights. Long is the war. Only by surviving it, will you prevail." -Yoda
"Wise man once say, 'forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.'" -Michelangelo

User avatar
Ilina_Young
Veteran
Posts: 677
Age: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:00 pm

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#25 Postby Ilina_Young » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:48 pm

i would probably merge climbing, throwing and swimming into Athletics and make it a Vigor based skill. none of the 3 come up very often on their own.


i would rename lockpicking security and have it deal with creating traps or barring doors in addition to bypassing locks and traps. Security would be a smarts based skill

Investigation would cover shadowing and searching for hidden things,

stealth would cover disguise (disguise is affected by applicable charisma modifiers)

bluffing would be handled by persuasion

gambling would likely be dropped, except as a niche knowledge skill for certain characters. looks more like a smarts trick or other similar thing

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#26 Postby Deskepticon » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:16 pm

Ilina_Young wrote:i would probably merge climbing, throwing and swimming into Athletics and make it a Vigor based skill. none of the 3 come up very often on their own.

I would not mix Throwing into the lot. I would instead offer a Professional Edge (call it Tri-Athlete) that boosts Athletics and Throwing. I'm fine with tying it to Vigor since I do that with Swimming 90% of the time.

Ilina_Young wrote:...stealth would cover disguise (disguise is affected by applicable charisma modifiers)


Whoa! Deja' vu.
This was brought up before... Persuasion is used for disguises, and Charisma doesn't apply to Stealth.

User avatar
Lord Lance
Heroic
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:00 am
Location: Vicenza, Italy

Re: Re:

#27 Postby Lord Lance » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:44 pm

Jounichi wrote:but I do caution against rolling Throwing into the mix

Well, throwing is (usually, at least at my table) a very very poor as skill, even as combat skill. Almost all my players dump it away. Even in ancient settings, there are few thrown weapons worth the price of that skill. In modern ones, it's totally overcame by shooting.
If you don't bring in some very special Edge, the skill is often left behind. And, if the player need a roll on that skill, once in a while (rarely throwing their melee weapon, or throwing a grappling hook), they prefer to waste 3 bennies on that roll, in place of use their advancements.
So, I merged Throwing to Athletics. If you want to rationalize that, I have to say that it's very easy to throw an object fast and far, and hitting a target, after a few practice, especially when you have a body in good shape (as a capable athlete well versed in running, swimming and climbing can be).

Final note: I saw a setting that use Athletics skill too, and it uses (also) in place of Agility rolls during Chases. Men, I didn't think about that use, and of course I immediately added to my campaigns too.
"Balance is the key, Trapping is the word." - - Lord Lance

Proud creator of the SAVAGE FREE BESTIARY

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: Re:

#28 Postby Deskepticon » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:47 pm

Lord Lance wrote:Final note: I saw a setting that use Athletics skill too, and it uses (also) in place of Agility rolls during Chases. Men, I didn't think about that use, and of course I immediately added to my campaigns too.

I considered using Athletics to replace the running die (making it a little more appealing) but struggled with the -2 for untrained checks.

SteelDraco
Seasoned
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 12:04 am

Re: Re:

#29 Postby SteelDraco » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:28 pm

Deskepticon wrote: I considered using Athletics to replace the running die (making it a little more appealing) but struggled with the -2 for untrained checks.

I let untrained people pick. If they don't have Athletics, they can roll just a d6, with no trait die, and it can't ace. However, if they have Athletics, they get their wild die, and it aces (to a maximum run of 2x their base base.

galu
Seasoned
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#30 Postby galu » Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:36 am

I generally don't use changes all the time on the skill list.

Nowadays - while preparing a vanilla fantasy campaign - we play a historical game. (kind of three musketeers, but centered in Vienna, also a bit more grim, as lots of slavery and taking heads take place on the ottoman frontier)

What we use there:
boating - originally none (not a focus), but PCs can take it as is
climbing - merged into athletics
driving - none (pre steam age)
faith - none (there are no "clerics". Knowledgeable priests can do wizard-like spellcasting)
fighting - split into melee and fencing (to be true to the source material. Eg. the russian cavalry officer who is great with sabre but bad in a bar brawl, or the turkish pirate who is good in wrestling, but has no chance in a fair sabre duel)
gambling - as is
guts - as is, but renamed to bravery
healing - as is, renamed to medicine
intimidation - as is
investigation - none
knowledge - all knowledges combined into "education". which is used for known languages, mathematics, physics, chemistry, literature, history...
lockpick - combined into tinkering together with repair
notice - as is
persuade - as is, renamed to charm
piloting - none
repair - combined into tinkering with lockpick
riding - merged into athletics
shooting - as is, renamed to marksman
stelath - as is
streetwise - as is
survival - as is, combined with tracking
swimming - merged into athletics
taunt - as is
throwing - merged into athletics
tracking - merged into survival
weird science - as is


added:
credit: the cash at hand, and the amount of credit you can get for a purchase (the group I play with hates counting coins, but wants an indication on their resources. So, "can I scrape together enough money to buy opera tickets" "roll credit")
etiquette: dances at balls (the campaign is set in Vienna), provoking duels/avoiding duels, and generally acting in a laudable way, acting as a charming host/guest

so, our final list is:
athletics, fighting, melee, gambling, bravery, medicine, intimidation, education, tinkering, notice, charm, marksmanship, stealth, streetwise, survival, taunt, weird science + credit + etiquette

I think I should have combined intimidation and taunt too. (might do that actually)

Almagest
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#31 Postby Almagest » Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:00 pm

I use a reduced Skill list, because I'm trying a simplified version of the system for newbies. So many skills are merged or excluded. Specially Intimidation and Taunt since I incorporated these maneuvers as Tricks. Others Skill (like Noticing) I split in two, for taste and style of play.

Reading this post inspired me to post a character sheet in my blog. Thanks for helping me defeat my laziness :D Check it out if you like this modified Skill list: https://taburpg.wordpress.com/2017/03/1 ... ter-sheet/

The modified Skills are:

  • Athletics: incorporates Climbing and Swimming.
  • Piloting: includes Boating and the old Piloting. It’s the “unusual” means transportation for the setting, like airships or submarines.
  • Riding: incorporates Driving and the old Riding. It’s the “normal”, land-based means of transportation, like cars and horses.
  • Shooting: includes Shooting and Throwing.
  • Investigation: besides researching, investigation covers some areas of the regular Notice skill, like searching for clues and noticing details.
  • Knowledge: instead being several different skills, the new Knowledge is how well learned the character is or how much hours of academic study he has.
    You can use it like a regular skill or use specializations. For each point in this skill, you get a specialization (Religion, arcana, war, computers etc. Each setting have a list of relevant knowledges). You only can roll Knowledge if you have a corresponding specialization.
  • Notice: split between Investigation (looking for clues and details), Noticing (general alertness and perception) and Empathy (social perception).
  • Survival: includes the old Tracking skill.
  • Bluffing: it’s the art of concealing your feelings. Can be used to outright lie or retain composure in face of provocation. Includes the Gambling skill.
  • Empathy: it’s your social perception and ability to discern other person’s emotions.
  • Persuasion: it get split between Bluffing and Persuasion.

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#32 Postby Deskepticon » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:00 pm

Almagest wrote:... Specially Intimidation and Taunt since I incorporated these maneuvers as Tricks.


I would reconsider this move. Taunt/Intimidate have different mechanics from Tricks, and there's a reason Tricks are "free" while ToW actions require skills.

Almagest wrote:Piloting: includes Boating and the old Piloting. It’s the “unusual” means transportation for the setting, like airships or submarines.

[*]Riding: incorporates Driving and the old Riding. It’s the “normal”, land-based means of transportation, like cars and horses.


Maybe just make them all Agility rolls with a -2 penalty, then offer Edges to support the individual uses.

Almagest wrote:Investigation: besides researching, investigation covers some areas of the regular Notice skill, like searching for clues and noticing details.


This is a very common change, in my experience. I do this as well.

Almagest wrote:Knowledge: instead being several different skills, the new Knowledge is how well learned the character is or how much hours of academic study he has.
You can use it like a regular skill or use specializations. For each point in this skill, you get a specialization (Religion, arcana, war, computers etc. Each setting have a list of relevant knowledges). You only can roll Knowledge if you have a corresponding specialization.


So what about Common Knowledge?
This change sounds like if a character doesn't have a specialization then they are completely ignorant of the topic. Which means they can only have 5 specializations until they hit Legendary.
In other words, all the characters are idiot-savants... and that doesn't sit well with me.

Almagest wrote:Notice: split between Investigation (looking for clues and details), Noticing (general alertness and perception) and Empathy (social perception).
[*]Empathy: it’s your social perception and ability to discern other person’s emotions.


I have trouble seeing empathy as a skill. Sure, it is something learned, but typically in a person's formative years; not in the relatively short span of time a character Advances.
Seems like the application of empathy could be divided amongst Notice, Persuasion and Bluffing as the scene demands.

Almagest
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#33 Postby Almagest » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:41 am

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:... Specially Intimidation and Taunt since I incorporated these maneuvers as Tricks.


I would reconsider this move. Taunt/Intimidate have different mechanics from Tricks, and there's a reason Tricks are "free" while ToW actions require skills.


Actually, Taunt/Intimidate are worse than regular Tricks, and cost more (a new Skill). There's a great blog post about it: http://savage-stuff.blogspot.com.br/201 ... chive.html

It's a taste thing. But if you don't like the house rule, but enjoy the character sheet, in the end of the post I added a sheet with a blank Skill list.

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:Piloting: includes Boating and the old Piloting. It’s the “unusual” means transportation for the setting, like airships or submarines.

[*]Riding: incorporates Driving and the old Riding. It’s the “normal”, land-based means of transportation, like cars and horses.


Maybe just make them all Agility rolls with a -2 penalty, then offer Edges to support the individual uses.


That's a definitely a option I would use in some settings, specially in fantasy.

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:Investigation: besides researching, investigation covers some areas of the regular Notice skill, like searching for clues and noticing details.


This is a very common change, in my experience. I do this as well.

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:Knowledge: instead being several different skills, the new Knowledge is how well learned the character is or how much hours of academic study he has.
You can use it like a regular skill or use specializations. For each point in this skill, you get a specialization (Religion, arcana, war, computers etc. Each setting have a list of relevant knowledges). You only can roll Knowledge if you have a corresponding specialization.


So what about Common Knowledge?
This change sounds like if a character doesn't have a specialization then they are completely ignorant of the topic. Which means they can only have 5 specializations until they hit Legendary.
In other words, all the characters are idiot-savants... and that doesn't sit well with me.


I guess it is the most controversial house rule, and I didn't explained it well on the post.

There's no change to Common Knowledge. The new Skill represents formal knowledge or specific training relevant to the setting, but need not to be represented by various Skills (having to buy two or three Skills that are rarely used in game can be crushing).

This house rule means to emulate action drama rules, so, for example, a CSI doesn't have to spend 12 points to have Knowledge (Biology) d8, Knowledge (Medicine) d8 and Knowledge (Forensic Science) d8. Look at "science" characters in scifi shows. They don't just know one field, like Physics, Engineering and Computers. They are savant in a crap load of them, something that would cripple them as SW characters.

I think that a GM should have a list of 10 or so specializations. Important fact that I didn't say: You can buy a new specialization with a Skill point.

So the rule reduces the cost of an effective savant character, because it reduces the cost of getting specific knowledge in Skill points.

You sure can just use Common Knowledge, but I simple like to have a "formal education" Skill, something like Academics or Erudition (didn't use these names because they aren't generic enough).

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:Notice: split between Investigation (looking for clues and details), Noticing (general alertness and perception) and Empathy (social perception).
[*]Empathy: it’s your social perception and ability to discern other person’s emotions.


I have trouble seeing empathy as a skill. Sure, it is something learned, but typically in a person's formative years; not in the relatively short span of time a character Advances.
Seems like the application of empathy could be divided amongst Notice, Persuasion and Bluffing as the scene demands.


I think that you can learn to "read" people and get better at it. And I feel that Notice in RAW is too overpowered, so I like the idea to have a "social perception" skill (linked to Spirit). And a Skill specific to lie, hide your emotions. I know that's not for everyone, but I enjoy having more details in social encounters.

These house rules are personal and a matter of taste, so I fully understand that is not for every group or setting.


.

User avatar
ZenFox42
Veteran
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:25 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#34 Postby ZenFox42 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:16 am

Almagest - another thing to consider is since you've shortened the list of available skills from 23 to 11, your starting PC's with 15 skill points can begin with skill levels that are much higher than RAW intended. If that's ok with you, no problem, but if you want your starting PC's to begin with a "normal" level of skills, you might want to reduce the number of starting skill points from 15 down to maybe as low as 8...
Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases

Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating

And:historical tech levels,generic sci-fi tech levels

User avatar
Jounichi
Legendary
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#35 Postby Jounichi » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:36 am

Almagest wrote:
Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:... Specially Intimidation and Taunt since I incorporated these maneuvers as Tricks.

I would reconsider this move. Taunt/Intimidate have different mechanics from Tricks, and there's a reason Tricks are "free" while ToW actions require skills.

Actually, Taunt/Intimidate are worse than regular Tricks, and cost more (a new Skill). There's a great blog post about it: http://savage-stuff.blogspot.com.br/201 ... chive.html

It's a taste thing. But if you don't like the house rule, but enjoy the character sheet, in the end of the post I added a sheet with a blank Skill list.

When there is a gang up bonus present, Tricks are better. In other situations you'll want a ToW. Intimidation and Taunt don't have a range cap, so you can use them and then follow up with Shooting or some other skill. They can even add +2 to another ToW attempt, giving you a better chance at scoring that oh so useful Shaken for someone else to take advantage of. It's easier to boost the skills than attributes, and there are Edges which can capitalize on them. Besides Strong Willed I can name Good/Bad Reputation and Gallows Humor just off the top of my head. Some settings also use them for more than just ToW, like interrogating suspects for information.

Bottom like: they have their uses. It may be niche, but it's there. And while Tricks might be better more often, Tricks aren't exactly stellar to begin with.


Almagest wrote:
Deskepticon wrote:So what about Common Knowledge?
This change sounds like if a character doesn't have a specialization then they are completely ignorant of the topic. Which means they can only have 5 specializations until they hit Legendary.
In other words, all the characters are idiot-savants... and that doesn't sit well with me.

I guess it is the most controversial house rule, and I didn't explained it well on the post.

There's no change to Common Knowledge. The new Skill represents formal knowledge or specific training relevant to the setting, but need not to be represented by various Skills (having to buy two or three Skills that are rarely used in game can be crushing).

This house rule means to emulate action drama rules, so, for example, a CSI doesn't have to spend 12 points to have Knowledge (Biology) d8, Knowledge (Medicine) d8 and Knowledge (Forensic Science) d8. Look at "science" characters in scifi shows. They don't just know one field, like Physics, Engineering and Computers. They are savant in a crap load of them, something that would cripple them as SW characters.

I think that a GM should have a list of 10 or so specializations. Important fact that I didn't say: You can buy a new specialization with a Skill point.

So the rule reduces the cost of an effective savant character, because it reduces the cost of getting specific knowledge in Skill points.

You sure can just use Common Knowledge, but I simple like to have a "formal education" Skill, something like Academics or Erudition (didn't use these names because they aren't generic enough).

And that right there can be reduced to simply the kind of game you want to run.

Using the CSI example, everyone on the show had a different role to fill in solving the crimes of the week. Blood, fingerprinting, ballistics, and even entomological decomposition were all different specializations different characters had. No one would expect a single person to know and be specialized in all those categories. It's inneficient and takes away from what everyone else contributes.

But in a setting which places an emphasis on weird science? You specifically need two scientific knowledge skills to qualify for Gadgeteer. Now, if you wanted to use the skill specialization setting rule found on page 95 of SWD:EE to sort of shortcut that at your game table that's your business. Unless I'm misreading this, you're saying a d8 in a single knowledge skill would let me be proficient in latin, chemistry, and accounting. That just doesn't sit right.
"Rush not in to fights. Long is the war. Only by surviving it, will you prevail." -Yoda

"Wise man once say, 'forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza.'" -Michelangelo

ValhallaGH
Legendary
Posts: 8293
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#36 Postby ValhallaGH » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:41 am

ZenFox42 wrote:Almagest - another thing to consider is since you've shortened the list of available skills from 23 to 11, your starting PC's with 15 skill points can begin with skill levels that are much higher than RAW intended.

That's not entirely accurate.
Any brand new character can have a d12 in any Skill, for the cost of 5 to 9 skill points (depending upon linked Attribute). I played a warrior with Agility d4 and Fighting d12 in one campaign, and had a lot of fun.

The real change is that starting characters can be trained in every skill (unless there was also a change to skill points). A trained Wild Card will succeed about 2/3 of the time (62.5%), for a difficult task (i.e. TN 4). That will dramatically change the tone of the game, automatically turning characters into the kind of pervasively competent Mary Sue that gets really boring to play or be around.
The usual response in a game is that either the player characters roll over most challenges with little or no difficulty (because the characters are incredible, able to handle most challenges easily), or the characters find themselves dealing with penalties inappropriate to the circumstances - penalties that unintentionally reinforce the desirability of being overly competent. The first response is bad because it leaves the players with a reduced sense of accomplishment and misses the chance to tell amazing stories that all are thrilled to be a part of. The second response is a kind of game mechanic arms race, with a game master piling on more penalties to keep success rates at the levels the GM desires, while players are increasing skills and bonuses to keep success rates at the levels they desire - eventually, someone is at -8 to shoot a character standing in the open, and people begin to realize how ridiculous it has all become.
Atypical responses happen, and cutting the skill list to 11 skills could work out well. It's just really unlikely to work for the vast majority of tables. But if Almagest and his tables are having fun with it then they should keep it up.
Last edited by ValhallaGH on Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

Deskepticon
Veteran
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 10:31 pm

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#37 Postby Deskepticon » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:21 pm

Almagest wrote:There's no change to Common Knowledge. The new Skill represents formal knowledge or specific training relevant to the setting, but need not to be represented by various Skills (having to buy two or three Skills that are rarely used in game can be crushing).

This house rule means to emulate action drama rules, so, for example, a CSI doesn't have to spend 12 points to have Knowledge (Biology) d8, Knowledge (Medicine) d8 and Knowledge (Forensic Science) d8. Look at "science" characters in scifi shows. They don't just know one field, like Physics, Engineering and Computers. They are savant in a crap load of them, something that would cripple them as SW characters.


I see the need for a change, but I also think the concept of what a Knowledge skill actually represents can simply change from setting to setting.
So, for example, your forensic investgator can simply buy Knowledge (forensic science) and gain all the other skills you mentioned automatically; as long as it matches her backstory, she should have that abilities easily.

I think that a GM should have a list of 10 or so specializations. Important fact that I didn't say: You can buy a new specialization with a Skill point.

So for a single point (half an Advance?) you can buy an specialization instead of increasing the die type? Or does each die step give you a specialization? Or is it both?
Because one of the issues I see is that you can have a Knowledge skill of d8, buy a new specialization for 1 point, and presumably roll that specialization at d8.

Almagest
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#38 Postby Almagest » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:21 pm

Deskepticon wrote:
Almagest wrote:There's no change to Common Knowledge. The new Skill represents formal knowledge or specific training relevant to the setting, but need not to be represented by various Skills (having to buy two or three Skills that are rarely used in game can be crushing).

This house rule means to emulate action drama rules, so, for example, a CSI doesn't have to spend 12 points to have Knowledge (Biology) d8, Knowledge (Medicine) d8 and Knowledge (Forensic Science) d8. Look at "science" characters in scifi shows. They don't just know one field, like Physics, Engineering and Computers. They are savant in a crap load of them, something that would cripple them as SW characters.


I see the need for a change, but I also think the concept of what a Knowledge skill actually represents can simply change from setting to setting.
So, for example, your forensic investgator can simply buy Knowledge (forensic science) and gain all the other skills you mentioned automatically; as long as it matches her backstory, she should have that abilities easily.


The "problem" that the house rule tries to fix it's the number of skills that a savant character needs to get in comparison with a soldier/warrior type, specially when Knowledge tests are not that common. If a group like your skill list to be more like a simulation, more power for them. This rule is not for everyone.

Imagine that you are modeling a character like Scully from X-Files. You need to have at least three regular Knowledge skills (Medicine, Forensic Scientist and FBI Agent). Or Fitz for Agents of SHIELD, that seems to be a technology, weapons, computers, deus ex machina expert :)

The concept is not new, Fate Core has the Lore skill, that cover "learned" knowledge, without the specializations. I thought using the regular skill specialization setting rule from Core, but I feel that's overpowered for my taste.

Using very broad Knowledge skills is a interesting solution too. Some suggested to do away with Knowledge skills altogether, using just character concept and background with Smarts tests...

Deskepticon wrote:
I think that a GM should have a list of 10 or so specializations. Important fact that I didn't say: You can buy a new specialization with a Skill point.

So for a single point (half an Advance?) you can buy an specialization instead of increasing the die type? Or does each die step give you a specialization? Or is it both?
Because one of the issues I see is that you can have a Knowledge skill of d8, buy a new specialization for 1 point, and presumably roll that specialization at d8.


I meant both. You get a specialization when you increase the die and you can buy then separate for a single point.

.

Almagest
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#39 Postby Almagest » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:31 pm

ZenFox42 wrote:Almagest - another thing to consider is since you've shortened the list of available skills from 23 to 11, your starting PC's with 15 skill points can begin with skill levels that are much higher than RAW intended. If that's ok with you, no problem, but if you want your starting PC's to begin with a "normal" level of skills, you might want to reduce the number of starting skill points from 15 down to maybe as low as 8...


Makes sense. I'm using these house rules for a newbie group, so it's probably not going to become a longer campaign. So I just left this problem for the future :)

They are actually 17 Skills (7 linked to Agility, 7 to Smarts and 3 to Spirit). Maybe it would be best 11 or 12 points for character creation, I'm not sure.

Almagest
Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:45 am

Re: What's in a (skill) name?

#40 Postby Almagest » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:49 pm

Jounichi wrote:When there is a gang up bonus present, Tricks are better. In other situations you'll want a ToW. Intimidation and Taunt don't have a range cap, so you can use them and then follow up with Shooting or some other skill. They can even add +2 to another ToW attempt, giving you a better chance at scoring that oh so useful Shaken for someone else to take advantage of. It's easier to boost the skills than attributes, and there are Edges which can capitalize on them. Besides Strong Willed I can name Good/Bad Reputation and Gallows Humor just off the top of my head. Some settings also use them for more than just ToW, like interrogating suspects for information.

Bottom like: they have their uses. It may be niche, but it's there. And while Tricks might be better more often, Tricks aren't exactly stellar to begin with.


Yeah, I'm just letting my players choose to use Tricks as normal or with the Tests of Will effects. I'm not happy, I wish that someone found a way to make Tricks balanced and more versatile, it's one of the best parts of SW.

Jounichi wrote:And that right there can be reduced to simply the kind of game you want to run.

Using the CSI example, everyone on the show had a different role to fill in solving the crimes of the week. Blood, fingerprinting, ballistics, and even entomological decomposition were all different specializations different characters had. No one would expect a single person to know and be specialized in all those categories. It's inneficient and takes away from what everyone else contributes.

But in a setting which places an emphasis on weird science? You specifically need two scientific knowledge skills to qualify for Gadgeteer. Now, if you wanted to use the skill specialization setting rule found on page 95 of SWD:EE to sort of shortcut that at your game table that's your business. Unless I'm misreading this, you're saying a d8 in a single knowledge skill would let me be proficient in latin, chemistry, and accounting. That just doesn't sit right.


I agree that depends on the type of game you want to run. The rule intention really is to allow your character to be proficient in chemistry, accounting and Rome history (I would leave Latin to the multiple languages setting rules) :D without it costing more than a warrior would pay to learn "Fighting".

Weird Science I would keep as an arcane background skill, separate.


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests