[MijRai]

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.

It leaves them at having to pick where they are most focused at, just like everyone else.  Just because you have six in two of them doesn't mean you can't have a four in the rest.  On top of that, 'need' is a loaded term.  There's lots of different kinds of roles for magic users, and none have to fill them all.

[Hobbes]

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. 

[SmilinIrish]

I agree with Hobbes last statement.  The issue (as perceived by some of us, admittedly not all) is that some skills are redundant.  I believe that skills like diving and free-fall should remain, because those are super niche, and would normally require special training.  Combining things like running swimming and gymnastics (which really means climbing and jumping, because no one is really doing floor routines here) makes sense.  Rolling Impersonation into Con, or revamping firearms group, makes sense.  Like some others said though, groups like biotech and engineering aren't too bad, because no one is going to take them individually anyway, they are prime for group points.  Don't need them at 6's with specs, four skills in the group is a good deal.  As it stands though, most groups have a good skill, and decent skill, and a skill you would never use anyway.  The groups themselves need to have three skills a character would actually take, and advance the group in character.  Thats why I like the idea of swapping Disguise out for lockpicking.  Disguise is pretty niche.  Lockpicking is more useful. 

[Kirito99]

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.

[CitizenJoe]

Shadowrun 5e is demonstrably more skill intensive than 1st edition.  Melee and firearms were both baseline skills while the class of weapon and specific weapon were concentrations and specializations.  Now you have to buy skill groups for what used to be basic skills.

[Kincaid]

Throughout editions skills have expanded and contracted considerably.  You could take the Firearms skill and shoot just about anything and you could hyper-specialize in this particular gun right here.  There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches, many of which hinge on preferred playstyle.  Also, when assessing which skills are better than others, keep in mind the reason may not be related to the expansiveness of the skill (or group).  Automatics is better than most other Firearm skills because of the recoil clarification, not because of the skill itself.

[falar]

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.

[jim1701]

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.

Changing how much skill advancement costs is a whole other can of worms which has been hashed out more than once and should be relegated to a separate discussion. 

[falar]

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?

[jim1701]

The idea is not without merit.  Off the top of my head though I think you would have to completely re-calibrate the skill points allotted in chargen.  I don't know that the effort would be worth the net result.  At your table, of course, go with what works for you.

Consolidating certain skills, IMHO, allows players to create characters with more depth without changing the overall pace of the game.  I don't really have a big problem with reducing the cost of skills but a lot of people will say they don't want to speed up character advancement.

[CitizenJoe]

One of the issues is determining just how different a skill is.  Just how different is pistols vs rifles? Shotguns vs. Rifles?  They're pretty similar, point loud end at enemy and pull trigger.  But there's more variation within a group than between them.

And then there is the question of just how hard a skill is to learn?  How long is basic training? How many skills do you get there? How long does it take to become a surgeon? Or maybe just a paramedic to compare apples to different species of apple.

[Hobbes]

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.

[Hobbes]

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?

If more of the Group skills were worth spending Karma on you'd have this.  Example using the current system, you take a Decker with Skills "C" and put two group points into Electronics.  You then throw Karma at Computer, and eventually Matrix Perception.  The problem is critical skills are tucked away in a group skill and because of char gen rules you can't spend skill points on skills you spend group points on.  You've got to be prepared to burn a shedload of Karma.

If all the Group skills were worth taking to some level at least you could do essentially what Falar suggests with Karma Build characters or house rules that let you spend skill points after group skills.  However since the only group skill points a typical player ever uses are the ones at Char gen, it leads me to think that the group skill points are overcosted/underperforming/in need a buff.   

[SmilinIrish]

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? 

[Hobbes]

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?

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.

It really wouldn't make a difference in the campaign as the overall player dice pools wouldn't increase.