Just Validating/debunking my view on stat leveling

[Grasharm]

Had a discussion with my GM about leveling stats because I suggested to another player that he should divid the skills into 5 groups of 5 skills each and organized them into skill groups I want most to I want least.  This becomes an idealized set of skills as in it's final incarnation, barring breaking the skill cap of +5.  I find it easier to deal with skills in this way as it lets you identify the top 5 and bottom 5 then work on sorting the final 15 into low med high. 

Anyway my GM says it's impossible to stack skills like that though as when leveling skills you need a staircase effect.  ie in order to raise a skill to 3 you need 3 skills at one, and two skills at 2 so that when your raise it to 3 the skills would look like this.

3
22
111

I say it is perfectly okay to have a skill tree that looks like this:

3
2
1

as this satisfies the supported skills structure fine.  We came the resolution that it doesn't matter as it will be forever before this actually becomes something to worry about but I'd like to make sure I'm not the one that is wrong.  So guys which is it.

[Haru]

The column structure is the right one. You don't need to build a pyramid.

However, when you are advancing, you still need to stay with the column structure, which makes it kind of pyramidy in the process, because you always have to have at least as much skills in a lower row as you have in a higher one.

So if you've got a skill list that looks like this:

3
22
111

you wouldn't be able to increase any of those skills. You would have to take a new skill at +1 at first, then increase a +1 skill to a +2 skill and then you could finally get a +2 skill to be a +3 skill.

3
22
1111

3
222
111

33
22
111

If you try to increase a +2 to a +3 directly, it would look like this:

33
2
111

The second +3 skill is not supported, because there is only 1 +2 skill in that list. And you'll get that problem with your 1 column as well. You would need to take 2 +1 skills, before being able to advance one of them to a +2 skill, and then you would have a pyramid again.

3
2
1

3
2
11

3
2
111

3
22
11

And you are pretty much at a pyramid.

TL;DR: You are right that the skill list can look like a single column, but during advancement, it will look a lot like a pyramid by necessity.

[Grasharm]

so clairfy a point.  is it possible to do a Skill tree like this

3
22
11

becoming

33
22
11

if I have saved up 3 skill points for some reason/

[Haru]

Usually, you have to increase them step by step, I think, which would look like this:

3
22
11

3
22
111

3
22
1111

3
222
111

So it would come down to a houserule. Though I feel like it would be pretty strange for someone to know nothing about a subject and suddenly be an expert in it like that.

[Belial666]

To go from this;

3
22
11

to this;

33
22
11

You add a new skill and increase a +1 skill and a +2 skill by 1. This would cost 3 points and would have skills increasing by only 1 point at a time, and have the final result be within the rules.

[Grasharm]

Hrmm, that works for my veiwpoint but to rules lawyer this I would point out the book specifies that you only have to pay the difference between what the skill is at currently... say mediocre (+0), and the rank you want to move it to... say Good (+3).  It says nothing about only being able to move it one rank at a time which would be more of a house rule not the other way around.  The book also mentions banking skill points just for this occurance in the example.  These are the cornerstones of my arguement and would like peeps to kick that shit over so I can get over it.  It really would be better for me if someone would demolish these arguements. 

[potestas]

i pretty much threw out his rule, its needless complicated. If you have the points I dont care where they go. if the skills were connected in some way maybe but there not. survival and guns have nothing to do with lore. In the real world lots of people are experts or really skilled at a few things and thats it. Everything else would be mediocre. No reason whasover to come up with some arcnae formula that says the lore skill at five needs to be supported by several unrelated skills below it in a pyarmid fashion. You and the GM are better off dumping it. This allows you t o create the characters you want without wasting points.

[Sanctaphrax]

I wouldn't recommend that. The skill pyramid does a lot to balance the game.

Realism-wise, I could go either way on it. But the pyramid serves a purpose.

[Taran]

To go from this;

3
22
11

to this;

33
22
11

You add a new skill and increase a +1 skill and a +2 skill by 1. This would cost 3 points and would have skills increasing by only 1 point at a time, and have the final result be within the rules.

You can do this.  You don't have to spend your point when you get them.  You could save up your points and increase a skill by 3 spots if you wanted.  As far as in-game justification goes...maybe you get a trainer.   In fact, you could say you were training in that skill all along while saving the skill points.

[PirateJack]

You can do this.  You don't have to spend your point when you get them.  You could save up your points and increase a skill by 3 spots if you wanted.  As far as in-game justification goes...maybe you get a trainer.   In fact, you could say you were training in that skill all along while saving the skill points.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that be better modelled by having the character improve over time rather than all at once? Admittedly I have a pretty strict view of the skill ratings and what they equate to, which goes something like this:

+5 - One of the best in a field
+4 - Professionals with lots of experience in a field
+3 - Competent at a given task, probably graduates of higher education
+2 - Recent high school graduates and the likes
+1 - Typical worker or hobbyist

So it doesn't really make sense to me for someone to jump immediately from nothing to degree level work, unless the character goes on a major training kick, actually graduates from university or is just naturally brilliant. This makes even less sense for the more physical skills, which rely on training your body over time. You don't get the instincts of a trained cop overnight, which is what a 0-3 jump implies.

[Sanctaphrax]

Skills are generally improved at milestones, which often involve significant downtime. Look at the in-story time between books in the series.

So I think there's enough time for pretty substantial improvement to take place.

[PirateJack]

Point, though that's not the case in all games. Perhaps a downtime clause would be sufficient to model that.

[wyvern]

Yes, you can save up skill points and spend several at once, doing things like going from, oh, athletics +2 and rapport +1 to athletics +3, rapport +2, and survival +1 (or whatever).  While I'd allow bringing a skill directly from +0 to +3, you'd need a good excuse; months of down time spent exercising for endurance or might, similar amount of time training for most skills, or you could always cheat and have a faerie drop knowledge into your brain or the like... but that last gives me plot hooks...

However, I find the requirement of maintaining skill stacks during play to be overly restrictive; my houserule is as follows:
* If your skill set follows the stacking rules, you may buy up any skill by one point.  (Still subject to normal skill cap, of course.)
* If your skill set does not follow the stacking rules, you must buy up skills in a way that reduces the deficit cost of the "holes" in your stack.

So, for an example, say your skill stack started at
4 4
3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

That's a legal stack, so you can buy up whatever you like.  For example:
4 4 4
3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

Now, this skill stack has holes - it's missing two skills at +3, for a total missing value of -6.  The next skill point, therefore, has to go towards moving a +2 skill to +3, since that will reduce the hole to being only worth five (a +2 skill and a +3 skill).
4 4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1

At this point, you've got a choice; you could buy a skill from +1 to +2, reducing the hole from -5 to -3, or you could buy a skill from +2 to +3, reducing the hole to -4.

And so on and so forth.