[All4BigGuns]

Not to get derailed, but prestige classes and book of nine swords make that untrue.  Paladin/Ranger are usually even better due to spells.  Pathfinder tried to fix this, and 5e does an even better job.

The opportunity cost of losing out on all those bonus feats just isn't worth the squeeze, IMO.

Pathfinder did make it even better, but that doesn't mean it was bad previously.

Don't even mention the travesty that is 5e. It is just as bad as 4e, just in different was.

imho having a high edge + attributes is better for a generalist (or jack of all trades) then skills A.  Reason being that high attributes give you a good baseline for every school (since dicepool is all that matter), and edge lets you excel at any skill whenever you need to.  Its more efficient then trying to have high skills in everything, and then lets you give your character some other focus as well.

A- Skills
B- Attributes
C- Resources
D- Metatype (Human)
E- Magic/Resonance (Mundane)

This can work quite well for an unaugmented mundane.

[Whiskeyjack]

you can have all stats at 3

This is also kind of its own trap though, and we've all seen the builds that play into it. Middle of the road attributes are a weak foundation to hang even high-rated skills on, even after ware. There are always trade offs. Anyone who tries to be good at things tied to every attribute either needs to accept and be ok with the fact that that they'll never be better than mediocre to average at everything or rebuild with greater focus.

EDIT: maybe this is perceptive bias. A Sam with AGI 3 before ware vs 5 is "only" 2 dice down, all else being equal, and that's 2/3 of a hit, but it really does wind up hurting you when the dice spike high or low.

[Csjarrat]

Yeah what I actually said was you get all attributes to 3 and then still have four spare points to use.

[Whiskeyjack]

I know, but that 4 really doesn't spread around much meaningfully. There are generally 2-3 stars every runner would like to see at 5 and one that people might want to hard cap.

I cut part of your statement just to address the specific part I quoted, not to willfully misrepresent you.

[Hobbes]

EDIT: maybe this is perceptive bias. A Sam with AGI 3 before ware vs 5 is "only" 2 dice down, all else being equal, and that's 2/3 of a hit, but it really does wind up hurting you when the dice spike high or low.

You know if you're going to start questioning the value of +or- 2 dice, a significant portion of your posting history needs to be re-examined.   

Anyway.... the value of + or - 2 dice depends heavily on opposed/unopposed, and if you're already in the range of "good enough".  Pistol pool of 10, those +2 dice are not causally dismissed.  Gymnastics pool of 13?  Yeah losing 2 dice won't hurt.

[I_AM_ZHOUL!!!]

If you have more than 2 levels of fighter on your character sheet for ANY REASON than you have morally failed!!!

Untrue. A single-class Fighter is quite awesome at the higher levels. Best versatility of any combat class. Go into Pathfinder and it's even better.

Not to get derailed, but prestige classes and book of nine swords make that untrue.  Paladin/Ranger are usually even better due to spells.  Pathfinder tried to fix this, and 5e does an even better job.

Yeah... in 3.5 there was ZERO reason to go higher than 2 levels for any reason ever. You got every thing Mechanically beneficial possible from the class by that point & 3rd level was a "Dead" Class level. But that's the point what this thread is about... there are all kinds of different "Traps" in game systems. When we are calling something a "Trap" we are saying that it's Mechanically Sub-Optimal to your character to choose it.

The opportunity cost of losing out on all those bonus feats just isn't worth the squeeze, IMO.

Pathfinder did make it even better, but that doesn't mean it was bad previously.

Don't even mention the travesty that is 5e. It is just as bad as 4e, just in different was.

3.5 Feats were set at 3rd level power... though they did try to make the high level fighter ones better, they still SUCKED in comparison. It's an non debatable point that a +16/+11/+6/+1 Fighter Gish who's casting 9th level Spells/Powers is going to demolish any 20 level Fighter class. That's the point... there are ways to be ahead of the Power Curve in any system, Skills A is not the way to do it.

[Whiskeyjack]

Well a trap is a trap because a new player sees it and thinks it is good just on the face of looking at it, because they don't have the system knowledge to know why it's actually bad.

Yeah I would say 3.5 Fighter is a good analogy. You see high BAB and good HP and a ton of feats and lots of weapon choices, and on its face it wouldn't look like you're largely obsoleted by things the Wizard can casually do by level 9, but not knowing it doesn't make that any less true.

An experienced player intentionally building something suboptimal is very different than a new player falling into a build trap.

[All4BigGuns]

A better example of "trap option" using D&D 3.5 (or any d20 really) as an example would be multi-classing AT ALL with a spellcaster. You gain almost nothing, but you slow down your spell progression and possibly lose access to an entire Spell Level.

[Glyph]

I think one of the ways that skills: A can be a trap is those "Help me with my mage/rigger/sam character" builds that Kincaid mentioned.  Because a newer player will look at skills: A and see enough skill points to combine several roles, but not realize that those roles also demand different high Attributes, or most of your starting resources, or a high slot for Magic/Resonance.  So because of this, they can wind up mediocre, or even all but unplayable, across the board.

[zarzak]

I think one of the ways that skills: A can be a trap is those "Help me with my mage/rigger/sam character" builds that Kincaid mentioned.  Because a newer player will look at skills: A and see enough skill points to combine several roles, but not realize that those roles also demand different high Attributes, or most of your starting resources, or a high slot for Magic/Resonance.  So because of this, they can wind up mediocre, or even all but unplayable, across the board.

Right.  Or even if they have a solid concept in mind ('Mage', for instance), by taking Skills A they're oftentimes making their concept actively worse.

Even if their concept is a jack of all trades, they then often will forget edge and how important that is to such a character, or they may not have the system knowledge to effectively play such a character or know what it means (i.e. never really being the shining star of a run, like a street sam who blows away a knight errant kill squad might be).

[Facemage]

Here is one example which is very strong with A in skills. He has no weaknesses in his skill pools to do his role as face or mage. He always throws at least 10 dices, very often 12 or even more. He can often (this depends on your gm that how often actually)  boosts himself to be more competent by alchemy. The only weaknesses are some low attributes. But if e.g. log is 3, it does not really help, if you don't have the skill.

A: Magic
A: Skills
E: Attributes
E: Resources
C: Metatype (elf)

Str: 1
Agi: 2
Bod: 2 (3)
Rea: 1 (5)
Will: 3
Int: 5
Cha: 8
Log: 1
Edge: 4
Magic: 6
Dodge: 11
Drain: 11

Adept Powers:
Increase reflexes 3
Combat sense 1
The next two abilities are because of spiritual way. He will take it after some runs. Other options are indeed possible.
Increase Body 1
Increase reaction 1

Skills:
Conjuring skill group 5
Influence skill group 5
Counterspelling 6 (+2 combat)
Spellcasting 6 (+2 combat)
Alchemy 6 (+2 command)
Con 6 (+2 fast talk)
Pistols 6 (+2 semiautomatics)
Perception 6
Sneaking 6 (+2 urban)
Intimidation 5
Impersonation 3

Spells:
Improved invisibility
Stun bolt
Blast
Clout
Increase willpower
Increase agility (alchemy)
Increase intuition (alchemy)
Levitate
Heal
Physical mask

Below is the same concept with B in skills. No specializations and several weaknesses in face skills. If he takes it, he can get +2 to his attributes (+2 to reaction or to willpower I think).
Influence skill group 5
Spellcasting: 6
Counterspelling: 6
Pistols: 6 (+2 semiautomatics)
Summoning: 6
Binding: 6
Etiquette: 0
Intimidation: 0
Sneaking: 6
Perception: 6
Impersonation: 0
Con: 3

As I said earlier he is weaker than a pure mage and a pure face together (two different characters played by two players). But if you have not enough players to do that?

The cost to rise your willpower to 5 is 45 karma. If you rise your skills to same levels as with A in skills, you have to pay >100 karma even with joat!

[Marcus]

Eh I would call this as a trap under almost any circumstance, 3 rating 1 attributes, a full 7 points wasted into alchemy (its also a loss of 2 spells for no useful gain), a full 7 points wasted into pistol which only gave a pool of 10. But I will agree it does clearly shows why Skill A is just bad news, in so many builds.

You could easily have dropped 14 skill points from this and moved those resources else where.

[Facemage]

Your comment contains very many errors. First: He has only 2 attributes at 1 because reaction is 5. Second, the difference between A and B skills is 25 skill points, so it is not enough to move 14 points elsewhere. Even if 5 points are wasted to useless skill in skill group, and that's why released also. And so on.

I have played this concept already and it works. In our current run we are infiltrating to a camp in jungle and there is no background count. So if a pistol is needed, his pool is 13-14 (because of smart link and agility spell).It's not difficult to hit with that pool at least basic mooks. I use those alchemy spells almost everytime, more often than any other spells in my list, so I think that they are not waste. They are useful even in mild BC (1-3) environments. They are not necessary, only additional mild but nice bonuses.

[I_AM_ZHOUL!!!]

Your comment contains very many errors. First: He has only 2 attributes at 1 because reaction is 5. Second, the difference between A and B skills is 25 skill points, so it is not enough to move 14 points elsewhere. Even if 5 points are wasted to useless skill in skill group, and that's why released also. And so on.

I have played this concept already and it works. In our current run we are infiltrating to a camp in jungle and there is no background count. So if a pistol is needed, his pool is 13-14 (because of smart link and agility spell).It's not difficult to hit with that pool at least basic mooks. I use those alchemy spells almost everytime, more often than any other spells in my list, so I think that they are not waste. They are useful even in mild BC (1-3) environments. They are not necessary, only additional mild but nice bonuses.

Just the fact you went Pistols instead of Automatics makes it a waste... Machine Pistols/Sub-Machineguns/Assault Rifles are clearly better guns to use.

You also missed one of the best spells for this build...
INFLUENCE (MENTAL)
Type: M Range: LOS Duration: P Drain: F – 1
You implant a single suggestion in the victim’s mind, like a powerful post-hypnotic command. For example, you might have your target think that FizzyFluid is the best drink on the market, or that he can’t remember his best friend’s name, or that he should let you past a locked door. The target carries out this suggestion as if it were his own idea. If confronted with the wrongness of the suggestion (like when the reality of the flavor of FizzyFluid in his mouth contrasts with his belief that it’s good), the subject can attempt to overcome it using the rules for overcoming mental manipulations (p. 292). In any case, the suggestion fades naturally after a number of minutes equal to your net hits.

[Facemage]

But he is a face. If you are going to important negotiation, expensive suit on you, do you have an assault rifle...
What do you think that the opponent side says?

Influence is good spell but not always usable. Someone might notice you. For example in tight negotiation situation Yakuza boss is with mage who check that you do not try to cheat with spells (astral perception) => you have to survive with your natural skills...

It is possible to change clout to influence. It is probably better, I agree that.