next »

[Reverare]

Are skill-jockeys even worth playing in a game that values supernatural abilities above skill (besides attack and block/dodge, that is)?

Obviously, people will still want to play skill-based characters in a roleplaying game, for the role-playing, not combat aspects of the game, such as being the archetypical Sleuth, thief, assassin, doctor, alchemist, blacksmith, and will need the skills to back their concept up.

But when they do have to enter combat, they may find themselves rather outclassed by the rising power levels of the other characters in their party- and the monsters in the bestiary, as their jump from Near Impossible to Impossible in five skills don't nearly amount to the same gain as the same number of Development points invested in Magic, Ki, Summoning or Psychic Powers.

Worse, there's little scope for long-term character concepts for dedicated skill-users, no Ars Magnus or High Magic for them to use. Rituals help a little, but only a little, as they pale in comparison to true spells. Alchemy (Promethium) also helps, but the number of choices available is small. Even Poison needs to be pushing maximum limits to work it's VR magic, and medicine, while useful, won't compare to a creation or essence mage.

Recent developments, such as the doubling of Innate bonuses, the five +10 bonuses to skills, and the clarifications of the Athletics and Jump skills indicate that the writers to some extent agree that skills are overcosted, but unlike magic, or psionics, adding new skills would only weaken skill-users, rather than broaden their versatility, they would simply have more places to sink valuable development points into. Similarly, the writers have shown less interest in skills in the GM section as they have in sourcebooks- whereas monsters and high-gnosis PCs have access to Essential Abilities that improve their magic, ki or psychic capabilities like Creation Points do, skill-using monsters have no benefit emulating advantages, they need to use DP.

It's not a problem for a Tao, who needs skills to progress in martial arts, Wizards and Summoners who need Occult and Magic Appraisal, or the other Domines, Mages and Psychics who treat secondary skills as secondary features, but for the thieves, assassins and freelancers, who live and die by the skills they gained in return for giving up combat advantages, it leaves a big gap between them and the other classes.

After reading Promethium, Arcana, Dominus and Core Exxet, and during their experiences playing and GMing Anima, have any other players come to the conclusion that secondary skills are more side-show than main event? Are they over-costed, do they need a considerable investment before showing return? Or do you disagree with the previous statements, or possible agree with them, but don't think it's a problem?

Give your answers here.

[Lizbeth]

Notice is a must-have. Magic appraisal and occult are useful. Forgery is usable. Acrobatics, composure and withstand pain have combat uses. Other skills are for prereqs, gm and roleplay.

Ps: skill user in anima is actually char with 60/40 combat/skill dp deployment and huge class bonuses to skills. And they are fine in combat.

[Reverare]

I definitely agree with the first two points, not so sure about Forgery (which is game-specific), but it seems you agree that it's not worth making a skill-jockey character with present rules.

It's a challenge for designers to get balance with each aspect of their game right. In Anima, that's less of a problem- Balance- pah, what's that!? 

But it's a problem here, because any class that gives up magic or combat for skill (which is about half of them) aren't going to get used nearly as often as they deserve because of it.

[Lizbeth]

It's not about balance, it's about the games the gaming group is playing. In any game with any system used skill users are going to be inferior if the game is centered on inflicting damage. Same way combat brutes are inferior in games with skills at their centre.

[Sharpandpointies]

It's not about balance, it's about the games the gaming group is playing. In any game with any system used skill users are going to be inferior if the game is centered on inflicting damage. Same way combat brutes are inferior in games with skills at their centre.

This is absolutely true.  And why it's critical for the players and GM to sit down before character generation and discuss what kind of campaign the GM is planning.

That said, you can do some pretty interesting stuff with skills at high levels.  No, you can't dish out more damage, but an Inhuman-level intimidate roll might work wonders mid-fight in pushing the enemy to the defensive, or something along those lines.  :)  

For my own game, the Skill-user of the group (an Assassin with Jack of All Trades and Natural Learner in a Field: Knowledge) IS completely outclassed by the combat-types in a fight.  She handled that by taking the Cursed disadvantage and setting it up so that her actually killing anyone would be disastrous, and then bought Needles (Impossible Weapon).  So now, it's all about paralyzing people via stealth attacks, tossing needles from the sideline to assist the actual fighters, and/or distractions.  Not exactly critical to the combat, but she certainly helps.

And she's very happy that outside of direct combat, the group considers her one of the most useful characters ever (also fun in RP, but that's a different matter).

And the fact that skills DO cost a fair amount, and that the 5 +10's and double Natural Bonuses only go so far, and that she gets those bonuses as well, means that she's far and away better than any of the other players in most areas of Skill-use.    

[Reverare]

Looking at it from a cost perspective, Jack of all Trades is pretty amazing. That +10 to everything is much like investing 20DP in every skill. You don't get that kind of skill mileage from Essential Abilities.

Would I be right in assuming that you think skill-based characters are underpowered, but still worth playing for utility's sake then?

[Sharpandpointies]

Looking at it from a cost perspective, Jack of all Trades is pretty amazing. That +10 to everything is much like investing 20DP in every skill. You don't get that kind of skill mileage from Essential Abilities.

Would I be right in assuming that you think skill-based characters are underpowered, but still worth playing for utility's sake then?

Skill-based characters don't have the same oomph as other characters, no, not in combat.  A completely tricked out Assassin, designed for combat, is going to flat-out lose against an equally tricked out and designed Technician, Warrior, etc.

Of course, the smart Assassin isn't going to go head to head with these guys.  But that's besides the point.

Given the kinds of games I run/play, a skill-based character is going to do just as well overall in the game as a combat monster (possibly better).  Combat is infrequent, social interaction occurs fairly often, I don't ask for rolls for everything but I DO look at the person's skills for an idea of how things might go, etc.

So there's a lot of value in playing a skill-based character in my games.  Combat capacity alone does not make for a fun time.  :)  The group's combat monster, a Warrior Psychic, is fretting about going to Gabriel (where they're heading right now) based on the idea that no, she can't dance.  And going to a party is going to be a little embarassing if she can't do that.  

Last level, she dumped Free +10's in both that and Style, commenting 'they still stink, but it's a start'.  And constantly bugs the Windrider to give her dance lessons and the Assassin to tell her about the history of the place, to try to school her on the particulars of the nobility, etc.

Now, being a fish out of water can also be fun.  Which applies both ways - the combat monster trapped in social circumstances, and the skill-based character caught up in a seriously dramatic fight...I'm currently playing a deliberately-unbalanced character in an online game, an Orochi-blooded, mentally damaged, horribly Cursed Technician who is completely out of her depth in anything but straight-up combat.  Given that after a couple of thousand posts, we're into our SECOND fight, we're not getting a lot of that...but 80% of my fun playing the character is watching her struggle to muddle through circumstances (and failing miserably, having to get the rest of the amused group to bail her out).

Short answer :).  Yes.  They aren't as combat capable, but they're still very useful in a game that doesn't focus exclusively on combat.  And a ball to play, based on my group's Assassin's enjoyment.  ^_^

Milage, of course, may vary!  :D

[Koenken]

From my D & D experience, combat is not everything and a brute fighter with not much in word of skills does not fair well in the skill challenges. I think the secondary skills have many uses, but not necessary powerful in combat as the others have said. My opinion on the matter is without them a character would seem very one dimensional.

[Sphynx]

Seriously... how much combat are you seeing?  The whole reason I made the Shade class (Psychic/Prowler) was because skills were the seeming central point to many of our games.  While true that a few skills are seemingly overused, with everyone having high scores in them, there's still cause enough in our games to actually sacrifice part of your 60% from your primary area to get some skills going on...

[Lizbeth]

We see not very much of a combat.. but I'm quite evil in the choice of opponents, so my players prefer to be skilled in only one skill rather than to sacrifice their ability to inflict and withstand damage.

[FearlessElbow]

I actually think that:
a)  As Sharpandpointies said, it depends on the campaign your GM is running.  If you're in the Prison of Noah in Deimos, then being able to dance is not going to be as useful as fighting skill, magic etc.  It's almost certainly going to be combat-heavy.  If you're looking at a more expansive, "holistic" role-playing campaign, then skills can be VERY useful.  A lot of them.
b)  It depends on the balance of the party.  If you have 2 or 3 good fighters / other combat-ready figures, then it's OK for someone to mostly sit out (or at least be less effective in) fights, if they're contributing elsewhere.
c)  You really should have skills.  The character stuff matters.  It's called role-playing, not continual-fighting.  The RP-side of a character should be at least important as their combat proficiency.

[Kakugo76]

My actual campaign is setting in Prison of Noah, but i've made even puzzle and trap (with some skill challenges), so my PC need even skill, not simply combat capabilities...