LethalDose said:

I think this may be a gaming paradigm issue at work, here.

For instance, given the actual rules mechanics, it doesn't seem that characteristics in this game are anywhere near the end-all, be-all that attributes are in d20 systems, which I think should obviate the need to want to game the system to pick up dedication talents. Admittedly, that can be a hard thing to wrap one's head around if that's not what one is used to, but it seems to be the case here.

The same can be said about in-class skill training. Realistically speaking, how many skills do you need or want a character to be able to train in? For most concepts, I don't think it should need to be that many. And if a player is only happy with the notion of being good at absolutely everything, then why shouldn't that cost a lot to be good at?

Rikoshi said:

Rikoshi said:

This is spot on. Attribs are not really that important in this game, and its a massive paradigm shift. However, what I wrote was not "bad reasons players are forced to take new specs", but actually "… players feel they are forced.." It's absolutely a perception issue, but this wasn't explicit in my post. Good catch.

For the record, Increasing attribs produce the following bonuses:

1. Increasing the number of ability dice in a pool in early game (when skill rank < attrib rank)
2. Increasing the number of proficiency dice in a pool [parts of mid &] late game (when skill rank > attrib rank)
3. Increasing the number of ability dice in any untrained skill check.

The first benefit is much bigger than the second (it has been shown that adding a prof die to a pool has, approximately, 3 times the benefit of adding an ability die to a similar pool in regards to success probabilities, and almost no effect on advantages), so buying big on attributes at creation gives a nice big bonus on those early rolls in the form of an additional ability die, but the benefit actually gets diluted over time as training goes up, i.e. when skill rank exceeds the attrib rank, you're getting more benefits from the skill training than the attrib score. The third is more of a generalist character concern (some skills just won't get trained, even though the sometimes need a check).

The point at which the threshold is crossed is going to vary by character and attrib composition, but I don't really think that it's going to take more than a session or four for players to get their real trademark skills ranked over their associated attribute ranks. It's here that we see attributes playing a smaller role in dice pool results. But, I suspect many players are crying foul because the early levels of play are what we are most familiar with after having the game barely more than a month.

To answer your question, why shouldn't they cost a lot? well, I think they should cost a lot. But the current system makes that "cost" a freaking mess.
As for the OOC skill costs, I see four problems with the new cost:

1. Each combat skill appears in exactly 3 career or spec lists, and only 2 Careers and 8 specs have any combat skills in their lists.
2. It hinders players making RP choices because of the premiums paid on OOC skills
3. Discipline is very important for Force users, but only Hired Guns, Merc Soldiers, and Technicians have it as a career skill.
4. I personally think that the current skill lists are somewhat, well, "sloppy".

The first point is probably the biggest. Combat is still a substantial part of the game (though, in comparison to WotC trash, this emphasis is reduced), and its fair to expect players to purchase some ranks in combat skills. Under the old system, there was minimal cost benefit to buying combat specs to nab these combat skills, but with the new cost system, the value has gone up dramatically.

The second point speaks to the bad reasons I posted that players buy new specs. I don't think that buying a spec purely for a skill price discount (which is now sizable) should be encouraged. At all. and now it is.

Third is minor, given the de-emphasis of force use in this game, much to the heartache of a very VERY vocal subset of fans on these forums. I think it bears mentioning though. I believe we're gonna see a lot of Merc Soldier/Force Exiles running around.

Finally, there are some big holes in the class lists, like, doc's don't have Xenology and scouts don't have stealth as career skills. With the old costs, these oversights weren't a big deal, but because of the new premiums paid on OOC skills, the OOC has become about 3 times more expensive on them, which is substantial.

-WJL

3WhiteFox3 said:

The spirit of your statement is largely correct, but I think you have something of a misinterpretation. What's been shown isn't so much that Attibs > skills, but instead more lower quality dice > Fewer higher quality dice in almost every combination. So the important and most truthful part of what you're saying is supported by your second sentence: "characteristics get you an extra die in your pool".

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Speaking of descipline, well atleast the Politico and was it the Trader(?) I forgot, can get 2 extra class skills via a talent … and humans can grab a rank for free at start …but yeah the current list is somewhat strange and in general I feel OOC skills are way way too expensive - However, I dont actually see too much of a problem with picking a spec in order to get specific skills … I mean if u want to be stealthy it kinds makes sense to become a thief or assassin or survivalist or what-not …. whereas picking a spec just for one sweet (overpowered?) talent I find mroe problematic.

LethalDose said:

Good points, there (and also a good point to your breakdown.

It seems that the system wants to deemphasize attributes over skills, at least in theory (given the extremely limited means of improving them). And on a conceptual level, I see the logic there (honing specific skills vs. changing your physical makeup).

It looks like the math isn't quite working, though, and I'd encourage the devs to look at that. Personally, I REALLY like the idea of skills being more important attributes, and I'd like the math and mechanics both to reflect that.

I think the wording should be changed so it's just a flat 5xp per # of career paths and a flat 10xp per number of non career paths. This will make things all even for people who want their 20 xp.