Skill Columns

[Diadoles]

Sorry if something like this has been asked already. I did some forum hunting with no success.

I'm in a chest deep game and started the game with the skill suite of 10 skills.

+5+5
+4+4
+3+3
+2+2
+1+1

As I understand the rules of advancing skills it looks to me like I'll need something close to 17 significant/major milestones to raise one of my existing +4s to the +5 level. Am I missing something about the way the columns work? Thanks.

*Edited for spelling errors.

[Haru]

Yes, you'd need to build a third column to get there. I think that would be 15 points total, not 17, but it's still pretty expensive, yes.

Alternatively you could, if your GM allows a +Fantastic (+6) skill cap, you could increase one +5 to +6, safe up 5 skill points and raise the now smaller column by 1 point each and add a new skill at the base. That would still require 6 points.

Then, of course, there are other options.
- Switch out skills. If you want a +4 skill to be a +5 skill, you could just swap them out. Of course that means your +5 skill is now a +4 skill, but sacrifices must be made.
- Stunts. Lots and lots of stunts. You can easily use stunts to get some bonuses on skill rolls when you need them. They are very specific, but they are most often worth the trouble.

If you want to optimize your character, there's also this:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,45405.0.html

[Diadoles]

Thank you Haru. What you told me was what I suspected. My math is bad so I missed that it was 15 not 17. I figured stunts would be the way to go but hearing it from someone else is nice reassurance.

I'll check out that optimization thread.

Thanks again!

[Mr. Death]

Personally, if you expect to be in a game with advancement, I'd go with a much broader set of powers. Three stacks up to Great would give you a broader base to work with and more opportunity to raise hour skills higher a lot sooner. Or even something like:
4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1

Sure, you're a master of none, but you'll find yourself having to roll from 0 a lot less which makes a huge difference.

[Haru]

@Mr. Death
Yeah, that's something discussed in the optimization thread as well, I think. It's the jack of all trades against the specialized build. Highly depends on what you want to do with the character, there are good arguments for either. I personally like the specialist with a huge blindspot. Allows for spectacular successes and spectacular failures at the same time, albeit in different areas.

[Mr. Death]

@Mr. Death
Yeah, that's something discussed in the optimization thread as well, I think. It's the jack of all trades against the specialized build. Highly depends on what you want to do with the character, there are good arguments for either. I personally like the specialist with a huge blindspot. Allows for spectacular successes and spectacular failures at the same time, albeit in different areas.

The problem I have with that is there's little room for advancement -- with the two columns, you can't really do anything except add 1s. Even the normal pyramid means you can't advance any of the skills you already have until you have at least two skill points saved up.

But yeah, I suppose it comes down to preference.

[Diadoles]

I generally find I like specialized characters in other games I've played though I've lately been GMing more than playing. My GM for DFRPG is relatively new to GMing and we're all new to DFRPG. So far I haven't found myself rolling a lot of +0 skills except for my investigations skill. I'm a fighter who's first mission was to find missing people.

Advancement just seems like it is going to be slow in general in the game. Minor milestones can be used to tweak what's already there but a lot of time is going to have to pass to put anything new on the sheet.

[Taran]

I always try to get as many skills at the top as I can.  Those are the roles you'll be making most often and having lots of low-level skills just doesn't seem worth it to me.  You'll role them less and you'll succeed less when you do, imo.

to use Mr. Death's example, you'd be rolling your two most important skills at +4 and +3 until you have at least 2 significant milestones.  Then you have 1 skill at +5 and one at +4. 

Meanwhile, that whole time, you could be rolling those important skills at +5 from the get-go.

I find It really depends on the GM, though.  Some GM's have a minimum 3 shift threshold for maneuvers/declarations.  I find this, generally, makes having skills under 3 useless - or, at least, almost never worth it.

Other GM's adjudicate those differently, making low-level skills useful.  In which case, having a few more +2's and +3's lets you do more.

[Mr. Death]

It also depends on just what those 5s and 4s are. If they're readily applicable things, like Athletics or Fists, you're probably going to be fine with everything else. If it's more narrow, like the spellcasting stuff or social skills, then you're going to suffer when you need to do something else -- it's great if you can use your 5 in discipline early on, but it's less great if you're out of spells and have to dodge from a 0, or you find yourself in a social situation and realize your Presence, Empathy and Rapport are in the crapper.

[dragoonbuster]

I find It really depends on the GM, though.  Some GM's have a minimum 3 shift threshold for maneuvers/declarations.  I find this, generally, makes having skills under 3 useless - or, at least, almost never worth it.

Not to derail the thread, the "3 is minimum for everything" isn't correct per RAW...The book suggests 3 as a minimum for maneuvers with Evocation...that's it. Everything else should be based on what's appropriate, how difficult the maneuver is based on the Adjective ladder, etc. Often, thanks to what players tend to attempt with maneuvers, this becomes three or higher.

Obviously GMs can run their games the way they want, but given the way skills work in this game and the RAW descriptions of setting difficulties, I personally find that to be a bad way to run things.

[Taran]

Not to derail the thread, the "3 is minimum for everything" isn't correct per RAW...The book suggests 3 as a minimum for maneuvers with Evocation...that's it. Everything else should be based on what's appropriate, how difficult the maneuver is based on the Adjective ladder, etc. Often, thanks to what players tend to attempt with maneuvers, this becomes three or higher.

I agree.