buying stunts with skill points

[nadia.skylark]

I was thinking about what stunts do, and mostly they seem to either boost the value of a skill under specific circumstances or transfer a trapping from one skill to another. Both of these things can be accomplished by investing skill points in the skills affected by those stunts. For example, I could buy a stunt that gives me a +1 or a +2 to my weapons skill when using rapiers, but I could accomplish the same thing by raising my weapons skill.

Because of this, I think it might be a good idea to let people buy stunts with skill points as well as refresh. Does this seem reasonable? If so, how many skill points should one spend to buy a stunt?

[Taran]

The problem is skills have to follow the pyramid and you'd be losing a skill point to boost a skill....

Unless I'm not understanding. 

Let's say I have +5 weapons, I could lower my weapons to 4 (assuming my skill pyramid can handle another +4 skill) to buy a stunt that lets me dodge with weapons rather than althleics.  It's not quite as good as it used to be because my weapons skill is lower but it's still better than my athletics...

Is that what you mean?

I could see it useful when you get a significant milestone and your pyramid is shaped in a way that all you can do is pick up a skill at +1. 

Instead you use it to boost one of your other skills by +2(in a certain circumstance)
I don't know....it sounds abusable if you use it that way.  Why take a skill at +1 when you can boost one to + 7.   You know?

The other problem is the refresh economy.  You could end up with way more stunts than your refresh allows which should normally put you over the tipping point of free will.   And refresh is how you maintain game balance too.  You'll end up with way more stunts than your 'level'.   

That's just my gut feeling.  On one hand it seems counterproductive and on the other it feels like it could skew balance.

[dragoonbuster]

I think you're messing around with major game balance for no apparent reason besides "why not?", which is fine if that's what you want, but I try not to arbitrary mess with rules unless there's a good reason to for game balance or ease of play, etc.

The RAW relationship between refresh/skill points works quite well. I see absolutely no reason to mess with it. And like Taran said, doing so basically throws the whole refresh economy out the window.

Sounds like a min-maxer's wet dream.

[nadia.skylark]

The problem is skills have to follow the pyramid and you'd be losing a skill point to boost a skill....

Unless I'm not understanding. 

Let's say I have +5 weapons, I could lower my weapons to 4 (assuming my skill pyramid can handle another +4 skill) to buy a stunt that lets me dodge with weapons rather than althleics.  It's not quite as good as it used to be because my weapons skill is lower but it's still better than my athletics...

Is that what you mean?

I could see it useful when you get a significant milestone and your pyramid is shaped in a way that all you can do is pick up a skill at +1. 

It's a way to get around the skill pyramid, yes. It's also a characterization thing. If a character is good at using, for example, revolvers, that doesn't mean that they're good at using sniper rifles. However, because the Guns skill applies to both equally, the only way to represent that is either stunts or aspects.

Instead you use it to boost one of your other skills by +2(in a certain circumstance)
I don't know....it sounds abusable if you use it that way.  Why take a skill at +1 when you can boost one to + 7.   You know?

The other problem is the refresh economy.  You could end up with way more stunts than your refresh allows which should normally put you over the tipping point of free will.   And refresh is how you maintain game balance too.  You'll end up with way more stunts than your 'level'.

It might be abusable, yes. That's why I asked about cost. It might be less abusable if it costs multiple skill points per stunt, or if you can only buy a limited number of stunts per skill this way, or if the price increased depending on how many stunts you buy this way. I'm not sure what would work.

I think you're messing around with major game balance for no apparent reason besides "why not?", which is fine if that's what you want, but I try not to arbitrary mess with rules unless there's a good reason to for game balance or ease of play, etc.

The RAW relationship between refresh/skill points works quite well. I see absolutely no reason to mess with it. And like Taran said, doing so basically throws the whole refresh economy out the window.

Sounds like a min-maxer's wet dream.

I'm doing this because stunts can be important for characterization, but are so expensive for some character builds that you can't use them that way. For example, Harry Dresden should have the Infuriate stunt. It's clearly written for him, it's perfect for his character, but he doesn't have it because he doesn't have the refresh for it, and because of this his ability to piss people off is nowhere on his character sheet, even though IMO it's nearly as important to his character as his Epic Wiseass tendencies.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm not a fan of the idea. I know some characters have skills to share and a shortage of Refresh, but this complicates character-building and seems likely to be problematic balance-wise.

I think there will usually be better ways to squeeze a stunt or two in. Harry, for example, really shouldn't be spending a point of Refresh on Lawbreaker. Why not move that point over to Infuriate?

[nadia.skylark]

I'm not a fan of the idea. I know some characters have skills to share and a shortage of Refresh, but this complicates character-building and seems likely to be problematic balance-wise.

Fair enough. How would you recommend dealing with skills where a character should be significantly better with one part of it than others, for example, if a character should be significantly better fighting with one type of weapon than others. Should that be handled with stunts, or is there some way to declare at character creation/milestones that you specialize in one thing and maybe get a bonus in that in exchange for a penalty for everything that isn't that? (ex. a character might get a +1 to weapons when using a katana, but a -1 to weapons when using something else)

[Taran]

Fair enough. How would you recommend dealing with skills where a character should be significantly better with one part of it than others, for example, if a character should be significantly better fighting with one type of weapon than others. Should that be handled with stunts, or is there some way to declare at character creation/milestones that you specialize in one thing and maybe get a bonus in that in exchange for a penalty for everything that isn't that? (ex. a character might get a +1 to weapons when using a katana, but a -1 to weapons when using something else)

Usually that would be a stunt but if you can't afford that it could easily be handled with an aspect.   The kinds of compels you come up with are up to the table.

[Mr. Death]

Fair enough. How would you recommend dealing with skills where a character should be significantly better with one part of it than others, for example, if a character should be significantly better fighting with one type of weapon than others. Should that be handled with stunts, or is there some way to declare at character creation/milestones that you specialize in one thing and maybe get a bonus in that in exchange for a penalty for everything that isn't that? (ex. a character might get a +1 to weapons when using a katana, but a -1 to weapons when using something else)

Stunts and aspects already cover all of this pretty well.

System ain't broke, doesn't need fixing.

Edit: It's really no different than a wizard's specialties, like Harry's blunt force vs. Molly's finesse and veils. Going purely by their stats, there's no reason that Harry's veils can't be exactly as good as Molly's, or that Molly's force spells can't be just as effective as Harry's. It's their aspects -- Harry gets a compel when he wants to hide, while Molly gets one if she needs to throw up a force shield.

[nadia.skylark]

Stunts and aspects already cover all of this pretty well.

System ain't broke, doesn't need fixing.

All right, but if that's the case then why are you supposed to choose areas of specialty when using Performance? Shouldn't that be covered by aspects as well?

Edit: It's really no different than a wizard's specialties, like Harry's blunt force vs. Molly's finesse and veils. Going purely by their stats, there's no reason that Harry's veils can't be exactly as good as Molly's, or that Molly's force spells can't be just as effective as Harry's. It's their aspects -- Harry gets a compel when he wants to hide, while Molly gets one if she needs to throw up a force shield.

Personally, I feel it's a little different because a wizard's magic is specifically based on who they are, while what kind of weapon you're best at using doesn't necessarily say all that much about your personality. For example, Harry is better at blunt force because he's a blunt, unsubtle person, but Harry is better at using a rapier than he is at using other kinds of swords (according to PG) because he's tall and lanky, which has nothing to do with his personality.

[Mr. Death]

All right, but if that's the case then why are you supposed to choose areas of specialty when using Performance? Shouldn't that be covered by aspects as well?

Personally, I feel it's a little different because a wizard's magic is specifically based on who they are, while what kind of weapon you're best at using doesn't necessarily say all that much about your personality. For example, Harry is better at blunt force because he's a blunt, unsubtle person, but Harry is better at using a rapier than he is at using other kinds of swords (according to PG) because he's tall and lanky, which has nothing to do with his personality.

"Who you are" is not just your personality. "Tall and lanky" is as much a part of Harry's character as his bluntness and lack of subtlety. Aspects are not limited to your personality, either.

[nadia.skylark]

"Who you are" is not just your personality. "Tall and lanky" is as much a part of Harry's character as his bluntness and lack of subtlety. Aspects are not limited to your personality, either.

Yes, but it's not one of his aspects, while Harry's "Not So Subtle, Still Quick to Anger" is, so we're back to the problem of how to mechanically represent being better at one thing within a skill than others.

[Taran]

Yes, but it's not one of his aspects, while Harry's "Not So Subtle, Still Quick to Anger" is, so we're back to the problem of how to mechanically represent being better at one thing within a skill than others.

Harry is not subtle so he blow things up.  His choice of dealing with problems and his weapon of choice is fire.  It describes his personality and weapon of choice.

Rapier Master could also be an aspect.  On the surface it describes his weapon of choice but it could also be a personality trait.  Maybe he has a Rapier Wit

Quick and Quiet, like a dagger a dagger in the  Night.  This describes a personality trait and a fighting style. 

Quick as a Whip

Undying Roman Centurian is a high concept and might also describe a fighting style or weapon choice.

When they aren't using those weapons, you can compel them To have penalties for the scene or compel them Not to fight until they have their weapon of choice or compel them to approach a fight that best suits their style. 

Invoking those aspects gives them bonuses with those weapons.

[Sanctaphrax]

Fair enough. How would you recommend dealing with skills where a character should be significantly better with one part of it than others, for example, if a character should be significantly better fighting with one type of weapon than others. Should that be handled with stunts, or is there some way to declare at character creation/milestones that you specialize in one thing and maybe get a bonus in that in exchange for a penalty for everything that isn't that? (ex. a character might get a +1 to weapons when using a katana, but a -1 to weapons when using something else)

Not a good idea. Encourages the fiddly, number-crunching style of optimization that almost everybody hates.

All right, but if that's the case then why are you supposed to choose areas of specialty when using Performance? Shouldn't that be covered by aspects as well?

Choosing areas of specialty is an optional rule. Having aspects cover it is totally a valid option.

You could have people choose areas of specialty for every skill, but would it really be worth the complexity? It seems like a real pain in the neck.