Please share with me your thoughts - What I see is:

I like the idea of skill groups for several reasons. One is that it lets you build a character faster - thinking you might want to be a gamer, but not knowing yet which game you want to specialize in you can just take the group skill "games" and move on! At a point in the story, if things develop to where you might want to be a specialist in a specific game it would be nice for the game to provide a way to transition.

Currently the book reads that there is not a compatibility between group skills and sub skills, and recommends against having these develop during the game - I don't really like this... The game may change shape as it is being played, and sometimes a variety of challenges can help keep a game fresh. If we take the general skill of games and then make a sub-skill Go, that wouldn't mean the causal "gamer" wouldn't be able to play Go against the specialist... just that they wouldn't perform nearly as well. I'd like to see some way to run a group skill vs a subskill in a check.

--

My thoughts:

I would give my players the ability to transition any group skill to a sub skill at any time. When they do this the ranks in their current group skill would then become the specialist skill. I would allow this as a 1 way transition at any time, as it shows the character developing and becoming more detailed, and I see this as a good thing. I would counsel the player to consider the matter before making the change as I don't think I would freely allow a character to back out of a subskill as easily, so it should be something they are certain about.

There are two situations where comparing the abilities of a group skill user and a subskill user could come into play. Either there is a static test they are both able to attempt, or a competitive check between them. If it is a static test designed for a specialized skill would you accept using a general skill with a penalty? What measure of penalty would be appropriate? How would you handle competitive checks between a group skill and a subskill?

If you would rather be more ridged to limit players from developing a group skill into a sub skill, or you like the idea of separating the interactions between group and sub skills, what are your reasons why?

I actually really dislike the subskill system they have implemented. I would prefer a cheap way to purchase "specialities" in a skill. Like the Advantage system it only applies to very specific circumstances, in your example when playing Go. The benefit could be as simple as reroll a numer of dice equal to your Specialisation.

So the Skill system stays the same, if you're good a Go your good at everything. But you can become a Go master with Specialisation in it.

I prefer to keep the system simple, so I won't use the sub-skills. To show that a character is an expert in a certain field they can take advantages for their specialisation, like the Distiction Keen Balance or the Passion Ikebana.

4 minutes ago, Drudenfusz said:

I prefer to keep the system simple, so I won't use the sub-skills. To show that a character is an expert in a certain field they can take advantages for their specialisation, like the Distiction Keen Balance or the Passion Ikebana.

This is the simplest way for sure, probably the best too.

For a third option a Specialisation in a Sub Skill could simply add an extra skill dice to that sub skill, but cost less xp to purchase.

I would be okay with all skills being what is called "subskill". would prefer i think, more depth and differentiation between characters. More to spend xp at too i guess.

Specially since now Skills dices are pretty good compared to 4th ed.

As it stands, i agree that at least some kind of specialization bonus, to the very least, would be a good thing.

Shadowrun 5th Edition allows a character to have a Specialization within a Skill, which allows the player to add 2 extra dice to your die pool.

I can see something like that, add and roll 1 extra skill die to the skill roll.

For example:

Marital Arts [Melee] (Kenjustu), add and roll 1 skill die to the roll when using Swords.

The question then is should it be a ranked thing, lower cost but lower benefits? Or should it be some time purchase for a bigger cost and bigger benefit?

There is two school of thought for specialisation:

Should it give you more chance to succeed or less chance to fail?

More chance to succeed: roll 1 extra skill die

less chance to fail: re-roll blank face dices result (like in 4th ed a specialization would let you re-roll the 1s)

1 hour ago, Nitenman said:

There is two school of thought for specialisation:

Should it give you more chance to succeed or less chance to fail?

More chance to succeed: roll 1 extra skill die

less chance to fail: re-roll blank face dices result (like in 4th ed a specialization would let you re-roll the 1s)

Could those things not be build as techniques? Why have an addition game mechanic if the ones that are already in the game could be used in such a manner?

@Drudenfusz do you have an example? or do you mean should it be a technique in itself?

knowing that cost of simple techniques are usually 2-3XP, which would be the cost of a specialization would it make that much of a difference?

Just now, Nitenman said:

@Drudenfusz do you have an example? or do you mean should it be a technique in itself?

knowing that cost of simple techniques are usually 2-3XP, which would be the cost of a specialization would it make that much of a difference?

I have not looked if there is already a technique that does that, it was just a thought on how I would implement that into the game, an dso one could have both your cases. Also, I guess the list of technique will not be finite, so you should be capable to make new ones up as you go. So, yes, I think it should be done as technique, not as an entire new category of game mechanics that simply is not needed.

Well making this a "Technique" would probably impact it with techniques access restriction.

so would it be a Shuji, a Kata, a ritual? would it prevent to get this specialization on an invocation?

you wouldn't make it just a technique, you would have to design a technique for each skill and classify it in the techniques types.

Might be simpler to just make it a general "feature" mechanic accessible to all without restrictions.

And to not overlap with technique adding dice, I would go for the re-roll blank side results.

14 hours ago, Drudenfusz said:

I prefer to keep the system simple, so I won't use the sub-skills. To show that a character is an expert in a certain field they can take advantages for their specialisation, like the Distiction Keen Balance or the Passion Ikebana.

Well... yes and no. When you're running a standard on-the-road adventure game you probably appreciate having martial arts unarmed, melee, and ranged be separate skills. If I'm running a court game it might be very important to have a way to perform song differently than dance, or to compose a piece of poetry different from composing a piece of calligraphy.

I don't think that sub-skills need to exist fully in every campaign but the point is that you can develop it when your campaign cares about it. Even if its entirely an "up to GM" thing I think it should still receive a bit more structure and guidance. Currently its a bit too much "up to GM."

Maybe it is supposed to be done as an advantage - Ikebana is an advantage - but the way it is done as a passion is that it is a soothing thing to your character, not that you are skilled at it. Perhaps it should be done as a distinction advantage when we want a character to be better at something? So Famed Ikebana Creator could be an advantage so that when you do things related to Ikebana you are better than other people would be?

I think I'm going to try letting my players buy subskills for half cost. My hope is that the exp savings will be tempting but grabbing the whole group has obvious advantages.

1 hour ago, MOONOVERRUNE said:

I think I'm going to try letting my players buy subskills for half cost. My hope is that the exp savings will be tempting but grabbing the whole group has obvious advantages.

Maybe if specializations are cheaper, and just limit them from surpassing the group skill - so you would pay full price for rank 1-5 perform (2xp x rank purchased) , and then the specialization is another 1xp x rank perchased - but then the advantage of using a subskill can be what? Would you roll more dice than someone with the general skill, like if you are against a person who has a specialization in the test you drop dice?? Or would you get some type of bonus like a distinction where you can reroll 2 dice?

I'm kinda of the concept of just using distinctions as it is very simple... but I also don't like the idea of having a ton of distinctions just because we're dividing poetry, dance, calligraphy, and and song in a game... The rulebook also describes distinctions as a more intrinsic quality of your character, and that these are not typically gained through training - so it doesn't sound like they intended this to replace the concept of subskills or specializations...

We obviously don't want the system to get more complex so I'm thinking of what would be an elegant solution that adds play value to the game without adding complexity. I'm on the fence about just including them as a type of distinction that basically serves as a specialty that you can acquire during game if you devote more training to something above and beyond the general skill. This seems simple, and mechanically valuable.

In many ways I actually feel as though approaches act as specialisations.

Take smithing as an example, traditionally it would have something like repair as a specialisation for instance, however in this case it uses the earth ring. By that I mean that if you want your character to be good at a certain aspect of something then, as opposed to specialising like you would in another game, you up that ring.

Now I'm not mentioning this as a means to say you're wrong, neither do I necessarily think that they are an ideal replacement. I do however think that having the 'attribute' (in this case the ring) be what dictates 'specialisations', when traditionally attributes like Intelligence and Strength etc. are pretty static is quite inspired game building.

2 hours ago, Bazakahuna said:

In many ways I actually feel as though approaches act as specialisations.

Take smithing as an example, traditionally it would have something like repair as a specialisation for instance, however in this case it uses the earth ring. By that I mean that if you want your character to be good at a certain aspect of something then, as opposed to specialising like you would in another game, you up that ring.

Now I'm not mentioning this as a means to say you're wrong, neither do I necessarily think that they are an ideal replacement. I do however think that having the 'attribute' (in this case the ring) be what dictates 'specialisations', when traditionally attributes like Intelligence and Strength etc. are pretty static is quite inspired game building.

That's a really great way to look at it.

Im looking more at. No such thing as "smithing" but Armor smithing, weapon smithing, some siege related smithing.

They already created the subskills, and gave you the option, but they dont really support it. i would be all okay for making the Subskill aproach the main one and the simplified skill groups the alternative for players that doesnt want a character with all that focus on small details.

3 hours ago, Mobiusllls said:

Im looking more at. No such thing as "smithing" but Armor smithing, weapon smithing, some siege related smithing.

They already created the subskills, and gave you the option, but they dont really support it. i would be all okay for making the Subskill aproach the main one and the simplified skill groups the alternative for players that doesnt want a character with all that focus on small details.

The difficulty there is the xp costs. Their system suggests reducing the number of skills in one group to increase the number in another. If you increase the number of skills in every group then the xp required to be as good is higher. That has a follow on effect since if you increase the amount of xp available then someone can forgo the skills and pump the extra xp into Rings.

I just think the whole skills chapter needs reworking. It follows a pattern but it's complex. There needs to be simple summaries in lists or tables outlining everything you can do in a Skill group, then they can go on to define what each actually is with descriptions etc.

Here's another idea that occurred to me, but I don't have the math skills to analyze it. It's sort of inspired by SW:

Instead of buying sub-skills separately from other skills in the group, you can "upgrade" them: for each rank in your subskill, you convert one Ring die to a Skill die.

Don't know how it should be priced, or even if it's remotely balanced, but it's a way to specialize.

2 hours ago, sidescroller said:

Here's another idea that occurred to me, but I don't have the math skills to analyze it. It's sort of inspired by SW:

Instead of buying sub-skills separately from other skills in the group, you can "upgrade" them: for each rank in your subskill, you convert one Ring die to a Skill die.

Don't know how it should be priced, or even if it's remotely balanced, but it's a way to specialize.

Wow, I like that idea, sure not for this to be used with sub-skills, but to replace that with the re-rolls of the Distictions, to make the game smoother since re-rolls are always slowing the action of the dice roll down for not enough benefit.

The whole 'subskills' concept needs revisiting. As it stands, a 'subskill' isn't anything of the sort. The 'subskill' mechanism means 'divide a skill up into lots of smaller specialisms that replace it'. So instead of having "Aesthetics" and paying 2 x [rank gained] XP to improve at flower arranging, origami, Bonsai, drawing and all the rest at once, you have to spend the XP to improve at *each* of them, separately: being extra good at rock gardening will give zero additional expertise at block printing. As it says in the blurb on p79 about subskills, you'd probably only want to do this, and only in a limited fashion, if you're running a game that's sharply focused on a single area of endeavour, given the paucity of skill points available, especially at game start. The blurb's example could possibly be read to say that you could split just one 'subskill' off an existing skill, but that makes even less sense.

On the flip side, it certainly seems a bit odd that a fellow who's a master at one of the very broad skills that are offered as default should inevitably be a master of all the aspects covered by the default subskill grouping: while footwork is important, it's about the only commonality between naginatajutsu and kenjutsu, and sculpture shares little with Kodo... I think a 'specialism' rule should be a default system. An extra dice for the specialism, say, and possibly having the specialism (sometimes) enforced by the school of the character that gives them the skill, if it does - Kakita duellists should probably specialise in kenjutsu, classically. The skills as they are do seem overly broad (shooting a crossbow and a Yumi are very different skills, though they both involve similar judgements). A Specialism cascade would allow for greater differentiation without meaning a specialist would be entirely incompetent with the (sub)skills that share common elements, currently grouped together as one skill.

On 10/9/2017 at 5:40 AM, shosuko said:

I know this topic is already quiet since long time but i wanted your advices on a house rule i tried to implement about subskills:
I divide them between basics and advanced with different effects with 3 or rather 4 tiers and providing a subskill speciality freely for each level in a skill.
exemple .
The character takes martial art (melee ) lvl 1. and chose Kenjutsu. Anybody should be able to wield even clumsily a Katana so this is a basic skill not advanced.
Buying expert level cost 1 xp/ expert subskill bought in skill (1 then 2 then 3...) and doesn't count to achieve carreer.
So now let see different tiers for a character using it to strike with a ring at 2:
No skill level: 2 ring dices
Skill level 1 but using a tetsubo : 2 ring dices + 1 skill dice
Skill level 1 in kenjutsu: 1 ring dice + 2 skill dice (replace a ring with a skill dice but still keeping ring dices)
Skill level 1 expert in kenjutsu: 2 ring dices + 2 skill dices (grant an extra skill dice)

Now let's consider an advanced skill (Ninjutsu for exemple to remain among martial art (melee):
No skill level: either 2 ring dices either not possible to roll up to GM (like a character without medecine should not try to make diagnostic
Skill level 1 but without ninjutsu advanced subskill : 3 ring dices (replace a skill dice with a ring dice but still keeping only basic ring dices)
Skill level 1 in kenjutsu: 2 ring dices + 1 skill dice
Skill level 1 expert in kenjutsu: 1 ring dice + 2 skill dices (replace a ring with a skill dice but still keeping ring dices)

Riding would become an advanced survival subskill, ikebana also, theology (shinseism or fortunism) . Jumping, lifting , would be basic fitness subskills and so on.
Please let me know your opinion.