| ACTING | Con / Intimidation / Performance |
| BIOTECH | Bodytech / Chemistry / Medicine |
| CLOSE COMBAT | Melee Weapons / Thrown / Unarmed |
| FIREARMS | Short Arms / Long Arms / Heavy Weapons |
| ENGINEERING | Armorer / Locksmith / Mechanic |
| Skill eliminated | Specialty it now falls under |
| Automatics | Any Firearms skill |
| Diving | Swimming |
| Forgery | Artisan |
| Gunnery | Any Firearms skill |
| Instruction | Leadership |
| Free-fall | Gymnastics |
| First Aid | Medicine |
| All mechanic skills | Mechanic |
| Impersonation | Performance |
| Biotech | Bodytech |
| Cybertech | Bodytech |
I'm not for cutting out all the skills you seem to want to...
However, IMHO:
Biotechnology belongs in Biotech Group (It's called Biotech after all).
Intimidation belongs in the Influence Group.
Diving should go in Athletics.
Perception in Outdoors Group.
Additionally there should be Lang Skill Groups so yo can bundle 4 related languages for 3*rating...
Examle, 4 from the Romance languages, say, French, Italian, Spanish, Italian
How married are you to the concept of skill groups overall? Could you live without?
I'm not able to give a detailed analysis right now (getting ready for work) but a few things. . .
1) Don't like thrown in close combat it really loses the whole melee aspect and there is a large difference between fighting with bladed weapons and fighting with blunt ones. If you really don't want blades/clubs maybe have simple, complex and unarmed. Simple are blades, clubs and other things where its basically hit him with this, complex are things like whips, nunchaku, 3 piece staffs things where you need to know how to use it or your more likely to hurt yourself than the other guy and unarmed is obviously unarmed.
2) If your after skill consolidation why not make firearms into "Ranged" and have it contain primitive, modern and heavy weapons. That'd give you a category for archery, slings and the like, a category for guns of various types and a category for vehicle mounted or emplaced weapons.
3) If you really want to consolidate get rid of all those pilot skills (seriously how often does someone take walker?) and just make it a single pilot skill with all the different types being specializations. Similarly I'd lump instruction in with leadership as a specialization.
I suggest you look into the previous editions' skill listings. It sounds to me that you are aiming for something similar to what SR2 had, which was a lot more simplified than SR5.Probably on a subconscious level yeah. I played a lot of SR2 20-years ago, but don't have any of the books still.
Would probably need to start looking at reducing chargen skill points too.
Your 5 Group skill points are likely tied up in a group skill related to your Archetype.No, that's generally something you want to avoid, because you want 6s and specializations in your archetype skills. Skill groups prevent you from taking specializations.
Your 5 Group skill points are likely tied up in a group skill related to your Archetype.No, that's generally something you want to avoid, because you want 6s and specializations in your archetype skills. Skill groups prevent you from taking specializations.
I agree with Hobbes. Reducing the number of skills doesn't automatically mean reducing the number of skill points since many of those removed skills were never taken to begin with, or redundancy made it very impractical/redundant to do so (say with multiple firearms skills).
I applaud the effort of this thread. This game has been bloated with skills of extremely variable value for at least the past 2 eds.
Athletics, Firearms, Close Combat, Engineering, Outdoors and Biotech Skill Groups each turned into a single skill. The former individual skills become specializations.
Chemistry is moved into Biotech.
Free-fall and Diving merged into Athletics as well.
Leadership and Performance squished into one skill : Inspiration under the Influence Skill Group. Intimidation moves under the Acting Skill Group to replace Performance.
Gunnery, Heavy Weapons, Firearms into a Group skill: Ballistic Weapons.
Archery, Thrown Weapons, Unarmed Combat into a Group Skill: Archaic Combat.
Locksmith, Escape Artist, Forgery into a Group skill: Quick Fingers
Engineering, Biotech, Demolitions into a Group Skill. Name TBD.
IMO. Cyber tech, Chemistry and Medicine are rarely used, only taken by very specialized characters. The individual firearm or close combat skills add nothing to the game other than a skill point sink for character concepts. Even merging all the Outdoors skills into a single skill few runners will take it. Engineering is fixing vehicles, you'll always take the one for the vehicle you own. Again the extras are just skill point sinks for character concepts. Athletics is all about Gymnastics, running and swimming are niche, don't get me started on Free-fall and Diving.
Skill Group points cost 2.5 times what an individual skill costs and are often only worth 2 times what an individual skill costs if that. Make them worth buying after chargen.
I think I hit the underperformers. Anyway, my thoughts on the subject.
Edit: Armorer. I forgot where Armorer was supposed to go. Was I going to lump it in with Engineering? Ah well.
I would angle problem form another perspective - there is no problem with quantity of skills, there is problem with starting skill points. I would rule that PC can take on start only 2-3 skills on 6, but there is 1,5x more skill points to spend on skills in all priorities - less very-specialized, more points to cover must-have skills.What does that leave for say, mages? A Mage needs high Assensing, Spellcasting, Counterspelling and Summoning. They probably also want high Binding, and Ritual Casting.
I would angle problem form another perspective - there is no problem with quantity of skills, there is problem with starting skill points. I would rule that PC can take on start only 2-3 skills on 6, but there is 1,5x more skill points to spend on skills in all priorities - less very-specialized, more points to cover must-have skills.
I would angle problem form another perspective - there is no problem with quantity of skills, there is problem with starting skill points. I would rule that PC can take on start only 2-3 skills on 6, but there is 1,5x more skill points to spend on skills in all priorities - less very-specialized, more points to cover must-have skills.What does that leave for say, mages? A Mage needs high Assensing, Spellcasting, Counterspelling and Summoning. They probably also want high Binding, and Ritual Casting.
Hyper specialization and relative character performance aren't the issue. The issue is some skills are simply better than others. You don't correct that by increasing or decreasing character resources, you have to address the skills.
This mildly reminds me of classic Cortex (not Cortex-plus) where you had generalized skills that you could buy up, but then you could buy up specialties for cheaper, but you had to have a minimum level in the generalized skill to specialize far up. So, for instance, skills would be like this:
Firearms
- Pistols
- Automatics
- Longarms
Firearms would be a general skill that costs, say, Karma * 4. Pistols/Automatics/Longarms would each cost Karma*1 (up to the rating of Firearms) or Karma*3 at higher than Firearms. When you build your dicepool, it would be Agility + Firearms + [Pistols/Automatics/Longarms] + Specialty.
This means you'd get the following kind of cost comparison:
Automatics 6 = 63 karma
Firearms 3 + Automatics 3 = 30 karma
You could specialize, but it behooved you to not. In this case, raising Automatics to 5 would be 27 karma, but raising Firearms to 4 and Automatics to 4 would be 20 karma. You'd basically build this whole pyramid thing in where it would be best to have a wide knowledge of firearms to half as high as you wanted your Automatics pool to be.
Hyper specialization and relative character performance aren't the issue. The issue is some skills are simply better than others. You don't correct that by increasing or decreasing character resources, you have to address the skills.
I totaly disagree. Issue is that PC due to relative small amount of skill points forced to superspecialised in chacracter creation and later buy other skills on 1-3, it doesn't make sense. With current system only characters witj skills on A or B can have broader options. Some skills are situational, some are must have, like gymnastics, sneaking or backup weapon skill. And to be clear - this is GAME and balance stands higher than experience from shooting range or swimming pool.
That's not really the core of the idea though. The core of the idea is generalized skills that allow you a given number of levels of more concentrated skills that you can further specialize in. What are the thoughts on that as an idea?
So one problem that has been brought up is the limited use of group skill points, because the useful groups have one critical skill, which prevents you from spending extra character gen resources on it. What would happen if we allowed groups to be broken in character gen, and still allow individual skill points to be used to raise the rating and add specializations? That would greatly increase the utility of group points.
A mage could then spend his 5 group points on sorcery, then use two individual points to bump spellcasting and add a specialization.
How unbalancing would that be?
Hyper specialization and relative character performance aren't the issue. The issue is some skills are simply better than others. You don't correct that by increasing or decreasing character resources, you have to address the skills.
I totaly disagree. Issue is that PC due to relative small amount of skill points forced to superspecialised in chacracter creation and later buy other skills on 1-3, it doesn't make sense. With current system only characters witj skills on A or B can have broader options. Some skills are situational, some are must have, like gymnastics, sneaking or backup weapon skill. And to be clear - this is GAME and balance stands higher than experience from shooting range or swimming pool.
A Samurai that skips Sneaking to take a second melee skill is pretty arguably worse off. If a Face skips Con for Performance they're arguably worse off. First Aid is rolled on almost every run, often multiple times but I've never seen a Medicine check matter for more than a bit of bonus exposition. And Gymnastics > Running > Freefall.
There is just such a huge variation in the utility of individual skills. Changing around a character skill point allocation doesn't prevent a player from falling into mechanical traps. It may mitigate it a tiny bit by lowering the potential dice pool difference between the highs and lows on essential skills. But ultimately the skills themselves are causing the issue.
Gives an advantage to players with a better understanding of mechanical nuances. Would be fine at some tables, problematic at others. You'd want to explicitly have players spend the Group points first, then the individual points to make sure players understand what the house rule is trying to do.I disagree. I think it would be way more intuitive for new players. When you introduce skill groups to them, ignore all of the bullshit in the book about breaking them and when you can and can't increase them. Just tell them "A skill group point ranks up each skill in the group"
It really wouldn't make a difference in the campaign as the overall player dice pools wouldn't increase.
So, it's system error that player picks wrong set of skills, or lack GM advice ? I admit that there is many useful skills, so I proporse +50% skill points rather than rewrite core mechanic. And if PC still will pick bizzare set of skills that is his choice, not game bug.
So, it's system error that player picks wrong set of skills, or lack GM advice ? I admit that there is many useful skills, so I proporse +50% skill points rather than rewrite core mechanic. And if PC still will pick bizzare set of skills that is his choice, not game bug.
Character building shouldn't punish a player for taking skills that fit a character concept. A skill point should be worth a skill point. Character concepts that include additional skills beyond a stripped down core competency shouldn't be beaten with a stick for taking a higher skill priority than the optimized builds.
So Im asking again- If your concern is wrong build, it's GM or core rules fault ?
So Im asking again- If your concern is wrong build, it's GM or core rules fault ?
Core Rules.
Having the GM "fix" messed up rules is never a good sign. Also what about GMs that aren't aware/don't care?
Well you CAN use all active skills as knowledge skills ! Sad, but even Hobbes can't blame system in this matter
4) Some skills feel like they should be knowledge skills, nd only became active skills because of stupid semantics. Chemisty is absolutely a knowledge skill, but someone went "Ok but you might DO chemistry so it has to be an active skill that we pretend is exactly just as important as Initiating Combat." Performance is absolutely a knowledge skill. Medicine is absolutely a knowledge skill. Etc, etc. Yes yes, I get it, you "do a thing" for medicine or performance, but that doesn't mean they should be treated as being equally important as Be Sneaky In This Game About Sneaking Around.
Balance is with priority system- of you permanently pick skills at C/D don't blame system, you can't have everything at chargen. There is no fair in shadowrun- aparat form proffesional rating 5+ elite runners are above all else.You're just not getting what people are saying.
Balance is with priority system- of you permanently pick skills at C/D don't blame system, you can't have everything at chargen. There is no fair in shadowrun- aparat form proffesional rating 5+ elite runners are above all else.You're just not getting what people are saying.
It's not about having it all.
The game implies that all skills are created equal - that something like Sneaking is of equal value to Free-Fall, or Medicine is of equal value to Automatics. That every skill is potentially worthy of being rated at a 6.
The mechanics and the themes of the vast majority of games simply do not bear this out.
Take D, 22 Skills for a Street Sam (assuming A/B Nuyen and Attributes). Athletics 3, Firearms 6, Close Combat 5, Stealth 4, Perception 4. Compared to Gymnastics 3, Automatics 6, Unarmed 5, Sneaking 4, Perception 4.
I'd also suggest increasing the number of knowledge skills folks get off-hand as well. There's not a lot given for even a 'smart' person to have more than passing knowledge of their hobbies on top of stuff like languages and other possibly important skills.
Ditch Gunnery (it is sort of superfluous in my opinion, and doesn't make much sense),
Merge Diving and Swimming (with a penalty to using diving gear for the deeper stuff if you don't have training (i.e. a Specialization) in it),
Throw Perception into the Outdoor group (the group could use some love, and it makes a bit of sense),
Merge Gymnastics and Free-Fall with a similar caveat as Diving (having it be another skill entirely just taxes anyone who wants to be good at it),
Ditch Exotic Vehicle (it could fall under any of the others quite easily),
Throw Forgery, Locksmith and Escape Artist into some kind of group (I don't know what I'd name it, but they're all skills of a somewhat dubious nature that require some knowledge and/or sleight of hand to manage)
Throwing Chemistry, Demolitions and Armorer into a group is feasible as well, I'd say (they mesh decently together, and it is another case of making a group purchase cheaper than buying individual skills, thus allowing more flexibility in the end result).
When a character is piloting a vehicle in non-combat, or everyday situations, no test is required (unless the character is Incompetent, and then hilarity ensues). However, characters in Shadowrun often find themselves in dangerous or extreme situations with vehicles. When that happens, the character controlling the vehicle needs to make one or more Vehicle Tests.
I just can't see a zero in computers as anything other than "Hey Tom show me how I send an SMS on this thing again? Hey Tom show me how to call up that phone app? Hey Tom this lights flashing how do I stop it . . . oh how do I charge it?". Yet most other people seem to view it as you haven't been "professionally" trained but you've picked up all the basics to play AR games, make phone calls, use the calculator etc etc but that just feels wrong to me.I'd say they're right. Perhaps if you brought examples that were closer to professional shadowrunner grade problems, then you would need the piles of dice that come with an efficiently built archetype.
QuoteWhen a character is piloting a vehicle in non-combat, or everyday situations, no test is required (unless the character is Incompetent, and then hilarity ensues). However, characters in Shadowrun often find themselves in dangerous or extreme situations with vehicles. When that happens, the character controlling the vehicle needs to make one or more Vehicle Tests.QuoteI just can't see a zero in computers as anything other than "Hey Tom show me how I send an SMS on this thing again? Hey Tom show me how to call up that phone app? Hey Tom this lights flashing how do I stop it . . . oh how do I charge it?". Yet most other people seem to view it as you haven't been "professionally" trained but you've picked up all the basics to play AR games, make phone calls, use the calculator etc etc but that just feels wrong to me.I'd say they're right. Perhaps if you brought examples that were closer to professional shadowrunner grade problems, then you would need the piles of dice that come with an efficiently built archetype.
Just like the decker may not have the ability to call shots on multiple targets in less than three seconds, (but will still be sufficient for knocking over cans on a fence from 10m) the street samurai doesn't need "breaking into a host" dice pools to use MSPaint. (though they may have trouble editing a file, given the same three seconds in a skirmish)
Perhaps but I think my point still stands.
System View
Rank Zero = No training you can sometimes fake it (default) and sometimes can't (no default).
Rank 3 = Competant skilled in basic options but has trouble under pressure or performing trick manuevers.
Rank 6 = Professional skill level for a job you do this for a living.
Player View
Rank 0 = Can perform any basic things you might need to do.
Rank 3 = Not worth bothering with either drop it to zero or raise it to 6.
Rank 6 = JUST starting to be worth considering as a skill but you better specialize and add qualities and other bonuses to add 4+ dice to anything you'd do regularly.
The two don't match up and as I said this causes problems for new players or those of us who prefer our character to have some skills with lower dice pools and primary skills in the 10-12 range for new runners. Sure your competant but your not going to have them beating down the door to hire you and only you.
The reason for this is that one of the most common character backgrounds (former military) is actually really skill intensive. There are a lot of skills that such should have that there really isn't room to have under the current skill points without really hampering core skills for role.On the flipside, having all the skills a former soldier would have results in you having like 5-7 combat skills, which is terribly redundant.
Perhaps but I think my point still stands.
System View
Rank Zero = No training you can sometimes fake it (default) and sometimes can't (no default).
Rank 3 = Competant skilled in basic options but has trouble under pressure or performing trick manuevers.
Rank 6 = Professional skill level for a job you do this for a living.
Player View
Rank 0 = Can perform any basic things you might need to do.
Rank 3 = Not worth bothering with either drop it to zero or raise it to 6.
Rank 6 = JUST starting to be worth considering as a skill but you better specialize and add qualities and other bonuses to add 4+ dice to anything you'd do regularly.
The two don't match up and as I said this causes problems for new players or those of us who prefer our character to have some skills with lower dice pools and primary skills in the 10-12 range for new runners. Sure your competant but your not going to have them beating down the door to hire you and only you.
Mechanically the number of ranks in a skill only matter for a couple things, like teamwork tests or First Aid checks. What matters is the total dice pool and is the skill opposed or not, and the quality of the opposition.
With Augmentations or magical attribute boosts players frequently have 8 or more in an Attribute, so even if they just throw a single point into an unopposed skill they're routinely doing average to difficult things. Some Metahumans with a maxed out Augmented attribute of 11 would have a dice pool of 10 on a default an be better at something than a "Professional". There are a fair number of skills that are just fine with one or two ranks in them. Thus the popularity of Jack of all Trades.
The number of skills is fine.
The skill points (for Priority) do need to go up to something like the following.
A- 50 / 10
B- 45 / 8
C- 40 / 6
D- 35 / 4
E- 30 / 2
The reason for this is that one of the most common character backgrounds (former military) is actually really skill intensive. There are a lot of skills that such should have that there really isn't room to have under the current skill points without really hampering core skills for role.
Perhaps but I think my point still stands.
System View
Rank Zero = No training you can sometimes fake it (default) and sometimes can't (no default).
Rank 3 = Competant skilled in basic options but has trouble under pressure or performing trick manuevers.
Rank 6 = Professional skill level for a job you do this for a living.
Player View
Rank 0 = Can perform any basic things you might need to do.
Rank 3 = Not worth bothering with either drop it to zero or raise it to 6.
Rank 6 = JUST starting to be worth considering as a skill but you better specialize and add qualities and other bonuses to add 4+ dice to anything you'd do regularly.
The two don't match up and as I said this causes problems for new players or those of us who prefer our character to have some skills with lower dice pools and primary skills in the 10-12 range for new runners. Sure your competant but your not going to have them beating down the door to hire you and only you.
Mechanically the number of ranks in a skill only matter for a couple things, like teamwork tests or First Aid checks. What matters is the total dice pool and is the skill opposed or not, and the quality of the opposition.
With Augmentations or magical attribute boosts players frequently have 8 or more in an Attribute, so even if they just throw a single point into an unopposed skill they're routinely doing average to difficult things. Some Metahumans with a maxed out Augmented attribute of 11 would have a dice pool of 10 on a default an be better at something than a "Professional". There are a fair number of skills that are just fine with one or two ranks in them. Thus the popularity of Jack of all Trades.
Post a build for say a mage or decker with secondary skills of 1-2 and see how well received it gets please. Serious request I'm not a good theory crafter and I'm curious how well something with a high number of "high requireemnt" skills character would do if you gave them say computer or first aid 3 or if you'd be told to drop those "unnecessary" skills to put the points into a "recommended" specialization.
Perhaps but I think my point still stands.
System View
Rank Zero = No training you can sometimes fake it (default) and sometimes can't (no default).
Rank 3 = Competant skilled in basic options but has trouble under pressure or performing trick manuevers.
Rank 6 = Professional skill level for a job you do this for a living.
Player View
Rank 0 = Can perform any basic things you might need to do.
Rank 3 = Not worth bothering with either drop it to zero or raise it to 6.
Rank 6 = JUST starting to be worth considering as a skill but you better specialize and add qualities and other bonuses to add 4+ dice to anything you'd do regularly.
The two don't match up and as I said this causes problems for new players or those of us who prefer our character to have some skills with lower dice pools and primary skills in the 10-12 range for new runners. Sure your competant but your not going to have them beating down the door to hire you and only you.
Look at life modules, pick a bunch of them based on story rather than what they give and look at the character that results, heck look at the skill increases you get for each module. Make a character with normal priority then make one based on Theme with life modules ignoring what you actually get and compare the two before you spend karma.
What the game system and developer intention seems to be aiming at is markedly different from what the players seem to think you should have.
I agree with this especially because of the mental/emotional disconnect between how shadowrun handles skills and how the gamers handle them. Look at the skill examples in the core book . . .
NO Rating: Unaware.
0: Untrained.
1: Beginner.
2: Novice.
3: Competant.
4: Proficient.
5: Skilled.
6: Professional.
7: Veteran.
8: Expert.
9: Excpeptional.
10: Elite.
11: Legenderay.
12-13: Apex.
I read that and think for my starting runner I can safely look at 1-4 for most skills and have maybe 1 or 2 "Professional" level skills throw in that the "human" example has attributes no higher than 4 and my inital assumption was a skill pool of 10-12 is fine with a 7 in secondary skills. Then I come here and get told no that's bad, wrong, fun and you can't contribute anything with skill levels that low you should be aiming for 16+ in your primary rolls and 12+ in any secondary ones from character creation. I know there are some who disagree with that approach but the point is low skill levels are going to be very appealing to most new players because that's what the book seems to indicate is the norm for a regular runner.
For me even now with the knowledge drummed into me that you should "maximise" your character so you only have a few very good skills and high attributes because you can "default" a roll I still feel more comfortable with the multi-skilled generalist. I don't want every skill and knowledge for amazo the amazing do it all but there is just so much out there that I look at what I'm getting and what the game classifies things as and I do want that to make my character feel like a real, breathing character rather than just a set of numbers I couldn't care less about.
I do feel every character should have 3 computers because really in a massively connected world like shadowrun who ISN'T going to be "Competant" at computer use (outside of special concepts like a shifter come in from the wild or the like), sure you may not know anything about the hardware and software but you are going to know how to use that off the shelf comlink. I like a 1 or 2 in first aid to represent basic training even if you aren't a paramedic, I feel a 3 or 4 should be fine for a firearms skill if you aren't the street sam not to mention all the basic skills like con, etiquette, negotiation. Instead we seem to get a sort of arms war where the players are forced to have a 6 + specialization + qualities + max ability + random ass pull to be considered "competant" against a standard foe. Which doesn't even consider the more skill intensive backgrounds/roles I hate being told your mage shouldn't have ritual/arcana/X because its not necessary or game mechanics wise is a poor choice I'm trying to make a trained magic user and they never ONCE considered maybe they should get basic training in astral combat or banishing?
I just can't see a zero in computers as anything other than "Hey Tom show me how I send an SMS on this thing again? Hey Tom show me how to call up that phone app? Hey Tom this lights flashing how do I stop it . . . oh how do I charge it?". Yet most other people seem to view it as you haven't been "professionally" trained but you've picked up all the basics to play AR games, make phone calls, use the calculator etc etc but that just feels wrong to me.
Honestly I'd be happy with either more skills so I can get my specialization and nice little extras OR more games where you go out with a 2-4 ability + 3-6 primary skill for a total of 5-10 dice as a starting runner against a regular foe and a 12+ is considered an amazing figure well on their way to prime runner status instead of the current situation. This would also allow more dual roles, more unusual concepts like the decker/mage or simply people to have skills spare to take fun little extra's like artisian to represent they know how to draw/sing/cook at something bewteen "Well I'm no chef but I can throw meat on two slices of bread." and "I'm a 5 star gourmet chef." levels.
@Whiskeyjack and Hobbes:Even if all skill priorities had markedly higher allocation values, I would still say that some skills would still be too-lave to invest any points in barring huge edge cases, that taking more than 2-3 combat skills was a huge redundancy trap, that First Aid <~4 isn't worth it, and that you don't need Computer to google a restaurant. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only reason for someone to even CONSIDER "efficiency" is woefully low point totals. The more points most people have, the less they'll worry about that.
@Whiskeyjack and Hobbes:Even if all skill priorities had markedly higher allocation values, I would still say that some skills would still be too-lave to invest any points in barring huge edge cases, that taking more than 2-3 combat skills was a huge redundancy trap, that First Aid <~4 isn't worth it, and that you don't need Computer to google a restaurant. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only reason for someone to even CONSIDER "efficiency" is woefully low point totals. The more points most people have, the less they'll worry about that.
Perhaps the easiest fix would be to change all skill groups into skills (and probably roll a few of the single skills into an appropriate group)?
@Whiskeyjack and Hobbes:
The only reason for someone to even CONSIDER "efficiency" is woefully low point totals. The more points most people have, the less they'll worry about that.
There, again, just needs to be enough points given that the attitude of the "efficiency crowd" is completely unnecessary.What do you see as being the value of keeping a ton of low-value skills in the system (does Free-Fall really need to be its own Thing?), or redundant skills (i.e. how shooting non-mounted guns are broken into no less than 4 different skills)?
@Whiskeyjack and Hobbes:
The only reason for someone to even CONSIDER "efficiency" is woefully low point totals. The more points most people have, the less they'll worry about that.
I gotta disagree. If you increase Skill points, or put lower caps on skills you reward specialists more than you reward generalists. Specialists will still put just enough in to get what is needed and have more resources to put elsewhere. Just the way chargen works in Shadowrun, if you put too much into this thing, you're short somewhere else.
The objective of reducing redundant or niche skills is to make more skill points available to the Generalist characters without significantly increasing the effectiveness of the specialized characters. Turning niche skills into specializations or Knowledge skills frees up skill points on the concept builds, and does little for the more focused builds, and allows players to still cover those niche skills.
Compare your typical Human Samurai, A Resources, B Stats, C Skills to a "Weapon Specialist" concept that goes A Resources, B Skills, C Stats. Under the current system the Weapon Specialist loses 4 Stat points to pick up a handful of redundant skills. If you consolidate the assorted weapon skills the Samurai stays the same, the Weapon Specialist gives up 4 Stat points and can make a significant investment in some secondary areas like Armorer, Hardware, Demolitions, Biotech and the like. The Samurai has a couple more dice here or there, but the Weapon Specialist has a useful broad array of abilities instead of a bunch of redundant skills. If you simply increase the number of skill points the Samurai simply reduces his skill priority and the weapon specialist still likely can't cover everything they wanted to at Skills B.
There, again, just needs to be enough points given that the attitude of the "efficiency crowd" is completely unnecessary.What do you see as being the value of keeping a ton of low-value skills in the system (does Free-Fall really need to be its own Thing?), or redundant skills (i.e. how shooting non-mounted guns are broken into no less than 4 different skills)?
Perhaps the easiest fix would be to change all skill groups into skills (and probably roll a few of the single skills into an appropriate group)?
Hell no. A comprehensive skill list is a positive for any game system. There, again, just needs to be enough points given that the attitude of the "efficiency crowd" is completely unnecessary.
The entire Priority table needs to be rewritten though (except Magic and Meta-type columns).
The table should be:
Attributes (copied verbatim from SR3 Core)
A- 30
B- 27
C- 24
D- 21
E- 18
Skills
A- 50 / 15
B- 45 / 10
C- 40 / 5
D- 35 / 3
E- 30 / 2
Resources
A- 1,000,000
B- 450,000
C- 275,000
D- 140,000
E- 50,000
At this point, the way the table is currently presented could be shunted over to a full "Street Level" table and a more advanced one created for a full "Prime Runner" table.
You're both an "efficiency" mindset person, and you don't seem to be able to grasp that most don't hold your mindset. For most, they would see having more points as being able to be good at their role and have all the other skills/attributes they need to "round out".
Again "redundant" and "efficient" are, for most, only things to consider when there is a dearth of points available.
@Senko:
That's the problem with skill ratings being used as the benchmarks. The rating isn't a good measure of capability.
If you use dice pools (like you should), the 10 to 12 range would be Competent, 13 to 15 would be Proficient and 16 to 18 would be Professional. This is for any skill that would result in an opposed test. For those with a threshold, the numbers for the pools would be lower of course. In this case, it would be 6 to 8 for Competent, 9 to 12 for Proficient and 13 to 15 for Professional.
A 16 dice pool is on PAR with elite special forces lieutenants firearms skills
Titles like "novice" and "professional" don't make sense in the attribute plus skill mechanic. I understand that they need to detail unaware and the 0 skill penalty, but those don't really match up to expectations. I think that if you replace skill rating with expected hits, the titles work pretty well.
The scale of dice pools is off topic.Thread drift is a thing.
EDIT
I'm not responding to your opposed dice pools comment because until we reach agreement on what is expected in terms of skill ranks and relative level we can't compare the opponents pools.