A Grand Unified Theory of True20

[The Shadow]

Well, I got hit by inspiration today and saw a way to buy skills, powers, and combat abilities in a unified way. It does away with the need for a fair number of existing feats, bringing them under one head. And it's modular too; you can adopt one piece of my ideas and leave the rest, if desired. I'll have to do this in a number of posts; enjoy! And please do comment.

Let's start with skills. I like the skill progressions in the Expert's Handbook, personally. Skill points are a little too fiddly for my taste. However, they are not perfect. Let's start by improving them.

First off, instead of using yet another chart of progressions, we will use the same progressions that powers do: Fast, Medium, Slow, and Very Slow. And we're going to look at the "points" like this: Take the number of starting skills the character has, factoring in role, background, Intelligence, and so on. Multiply that number by four; that's the number of (new-style) skill points you have to assign.

Your first skill point in a skill gives you a Very Slow progression. (This counts as training, naturally.) The next gives you a Slow, the next a Medium, and the next a Fast. Obvious enough, but it doesn't stop there.

The fifth skill point you assign gives a +2 bonus to the skill. (This is called Talented.) The sixth gives you a +1 (This is called Focussed.) The seventh and eighth also give +1. As an optional rule, you can keep going: It takes 2 skill points for each further +1 bonus.

Now. The Skill Training feat gives you two extra skill points. See where this is going? We no longer need the Talented and Skill Focus feats. (If you want to exactly mimic the way the existing feats work, have the seventh skill point give a +2, and eliminate the eighth point.) We also don't really need the Specialist variant of the Expert any more, as the possibility is built in. (As a further option, there could be an Expert feat called Expert Skill Training which lets them break the skill cap more easily and/or gives more skill points per pop.)

Each point you raise your Intelligence gives you 4 skill points, naturally.

To allow characters to grow and change without having to take feats, each level I would allow two skill points to be shifted around, so long as no skill goes up more than two progressions or down more than one.

EDIT: Expertise now gives you 2 skill points for a whole scene. You can get a new skill at half-ranks, or boost a Fast skill by +3, or a maxed-out skill by +1, or mix-and-match between different skills. If you want to make it more cinematic, have it give 4 skill points: A new Fast skill, or +5 for an existing Fast skill, or +2 for a maxed-out skill.

The Jack of All Trades feat lets you use any untrained skill, but gives no bonus or progression. (ie, 0 ranks.)

Languages are a sticky wicket. My thought: Each skill point you spend gives you a language. It's harsher than the existing rules, but I think it'll work - having languages increase automatically with level would too strange, and with higher progressions it would get ridiculous. The alternative would be to come up with a system where multiple ranks in a language actually means something, and each language would be its own skill. (Related languages could be used untrained.)

Multirole characters maintain different progressions for each role, as in the Expert's Handbook. When adding together the progressions, use the original role as the base, and subtract 3 for each subsequent Fast progression in a skill, 2 for Medium, 1 for Slow, and 0 for Very Slow.

EDIT: Perhaps that should be 3 for Fast, 2 for Medium or Slow, and 1 for Very Slow. Otherwise the slower progressions give too much of a boost when you move to the new role. If this is adopted, naturally powers should be treated the same way.

[The Shadow]

Now for powers. They work in identical fashion, except you don't get any power points by default, you *must* get them by trading in a feat for "Power Training". Also, of course, every power-using role has a base progression: Power Training gives a Fast role 4 power points, a Medium role 3, a Slow role 2, and a Very Slow role 1.

Important: Those few powers that don't depend on adept level or rank need to be "maxed out" to the base progression in order to work at all.

To match the existing rules, increasing a power past its base progression works the same way as pushing skills beyond Fast, and costs twice as much. However, I wonder if this is really necessary. If someone with a Very Slow role *wants* to spend four feats to get a power up to Fast, is there any reason not to let them? (Though this would tend to shaft low-level characters, it would be nice for mid-to-high-level ones.) In any case, though, going beyond Fast should cost twice as much as it does for skills.

[Now that we have the framework, here's a more radical proposal. Have powers be symmetrical to skills: Power Training gives 2 power points for Fast instead of 4. To make this work, we need to give power-users some power points up-front. My suggestion: Take the number of role-creation points they spent on powers and multiply by eight. That lets a 1st level adept have four powers maxed out, without spending feats. However, any feats spent after that will give only half the bang for the buck. I kind of like this, because it gives low-level adepts a break they sorely need and forces high-level adepts to be a little more selective.]

[If you want to be even nicer, you could let them get an Int bonus to power points, or even let them trade in skill points for power points at 2:1. And of course, in role-creation you could give a role more power points: 0.25 role-creation points should give 2 power points. (Remember, our new skill points are equal to 4 times the old ones, so 0.25 role-creation points gives 4 skill points.)]

EDIT: I'm starting to think that the "metapower" feats could be treated like powers too. Works like this: Suppose you have Fast Elemental Blast but Slow Widen. Your Elemental Blast is treated as having Slow ranks when you use it Widened. Basically, you use the lower ranks of your power and the metapower feat you're enhancing it with.

If we want to keep the idea that only adepts (and others with adept feat access) can use things like Widen, we'd need a new adept feat, call it "Adept Training" or something. Then the different metapower abilities would be have their own listing somewhere, as powers do now.

However, taking a page from DPoNI, I see no reason why roles with Narrow or Singular access couldn't take metapowers on their power lists. Not with Universal or Broad lists, though, as that would virtually equate to giving them adept feat access.

EDIT: It occurs to me that we could now do the Talent a lot like Expertise: Have it give a free instance of Power Training, but for one round only. (Since powers can't ordinarily be emulated by Conviction, while Skill Training can.) Though personally I think the flavor might be better if it gave only half the benefit of Power Training but for a whole scene.

[The Shadow]

Now we can jazz up Arcane Philosophies to be more exciting! Let's face it, +1 and -1 are pretty minor. My idea: Canonical powers are bumped up by a power point, and Standard powers are bumped down by one. You still have to spend a power point to get Canonical powers 'on the board', though - you can't use them at Very Slow for free! (Or can you? It would certainly be interesting.)

This suggests a skill version of arcane philosophies that I'll call a Skill Template. (And later, when we get to combat, it will suggest Fighting Styles.) Unlike arcane philosophies, there won't be any "banned skills", that would get silly fast. "Standard" skills will work normally. For every "Canonical" skill you pick, you have to also pick a "Debilitated" skill. Canonical skills get an extra skill point, Debilitated skills are penalized one.

You can boost individual Knowledge, Craft, and Perform skills, but you can't Debilitate them. Exception: You can Debilitate the Knowledge skills as a whole, letting you get 2 Canonical skills. (If you have a Canonical Knowledge skill, you can Debilitate all the rest of the Knowledge skills if you want, and have a Canonical skill left over. They don't cancel out.) You also, of course, can't Debilitate skills that don't exist, like Computers in a fantasy campaign.

Conceivably, Skill Templates could have Prerequisites, Perks, and Drawbacks the way Philosophies do, though I don't have any examples off the top of my head.

So with Skill Templates we can flesh out characters even more. Backgrounds will be for race, Skill Templates for professions and the like. (And they're not nearly as heavy-handed as in-class and cross-class skills.) Here's an example:

Thief

Canonical skills: Climb, Disable Device, Knowledge: Streetwise, Search, Sleight of Hand, Stealth

Debilitated skills: Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Knowledge (all others), Swim

Needless to say, Skill Templates should be designed by the Narrator to reflect the campaign, not by the players. Also, nobody's forced to take a Skill Template they don't want. If you want to play an erudite, urbane thief, don't take the Thief template! You'll just have to pay full price for your thief skills, that's all.

Unlike arcane philosophies, I see no reason why one couldn't have more than one template at a time, too. Add together the Canonical and Debilitated lists; any skill that appears on both is taken off both. (Two Canonical Knowledges will cancel out with Debilitated "All Knowledges" - if there are more than two, pick which two.) So perhaps your cultured thief (in a medieval campaign) has both the Thief and Noble templates. Some of the skills will cancel out and be normal price, but you'll be left with some of the flavor of each.

I'm running out of time, so combat will have to wait. Later!

EDIT: Perhaps arcane philosophies and skill templates should be a little closer to each other? In particular, maybe you should have to take a few extra Debilitated skills to make up for the bonus you get? After all, you're going to try to pick a template that benefits as many of the skills you want and debilitates as few of them as possible, as it is.

My first thought: Take two extra Debilitated skills. Sound good? Or we could do them much more like arcane philosophies, but I find the idea of "banned skills" highly distasteful.

[The Shadow]

A few more quick points before we move on:

* I just realized that with this system we no longer need to use the language of, "An adept can trade in a feat for a power." We can just make Power Training a General feat. Why? Because if a Warrior, say, tries to use Conviction to emulate Power Training, how many power points will he get? None! Because he has no power progression. (On your character sheet, you probably want to list it as, "Power Training X, Y power points" because the amount of points you get from Power Training depends on what role you take it with.)

* And I need to discuss how the new skill system interacts with backgrounds. Obviously, if a background gives Talented or Skill Focus as a bonus feat, that becomes extra skill points spent in the appropriate way. (One for each Talented skill, two for each Focussed skill.)

Less obviously, extra starting skills give *two* skill points each, not four. That' s because four old skill points are equivalent to one old Skill Training feat; so I think we should interpret them as one new Skill Training feat, which is two points. Remember, four new skill points would give you a new Fast progression! Which seems rather heavy handed for a cultural influence.

Logically, then, humans should get two new freely-spendable skill points, not four. (Unlike what I said above, which was to multiply *all* one's starting skills by four.)

What this boils down to is the following rule: A fixed bonus feat can be traded in for two fixed bonus skill points or for one freely-spendable skill point. A freely-spendable bonus feat can be traded in for four fixed bonus skill points or two free-spendable skill points.

To say it even simpler using the Background creation system in the Companion, each fixed skill point costs 0.5 background creation points, and each freely-spendable skill point costs 1 background creation point.

* If you're aghast at the thought of maintaining different lists of skill progressions for each role of a multirole character, just keep them the same for all roles. Use the "extra" skill points from Expert to buy entirely separate skills from the ones you got with Adept and Warrior, and you're good. Of course, this won't do you much good if you take a role that has *less* than four sklil points, but that's your lookout!

Or here's another alternative, which is quite a bit simpler but doesn't track the existing rules as well. Maintain one set of skill progressions for the whole character. The first eight levels of Expert grant two extra skill points each - effectively a bonus Skill Training feat. Or you could scatter those eight bonus feats more evenly among Expert levels if desired - perhaps you gain them at 1st and 2nd levels, then every level divisible by 3. Or whatever.

Actually... one role-creation point would come out pretty close to "an extra skill point per level". So just say that the Expert gets the same number of skill points as everyone else at first level (plus one), then they get a bonus skill point each level of Expert. At very high level, pure Experts will come out slightly better than they do under standard rules, but no harm done.

You could do something similar with power points. 0.5 role creation points could give you 4 power points up front, or 1 every 4th level - 5, if you make it to 20th level. I don't think this is nearly as convenient as it is for skills, though, as you pretty much *have* to maintain different power progressions for different roles anyway.

[The Shadow]

Combat was actually what got me started on this path, though it's still the most speculative. A number of people in past have expressed wanting to treat weapon proficiency as a type of skill. I dreaded the thought until I simplified skills. :) And I've expanded the idea to include a lot more than just proficiency. It addresses a lot of the problems with the split combat progressions in the role-creation system, and then some.

First, let's get a preference out of the way. I would prefer to use the same charts for Combat Bonus progressions that we're using for skills and powers. For two reasons: 1) Only one set of charts. 2) It gives more of a spread at 1st level, the lack of which has always annoyed me. However, this preference doesn't affect the system in any way; if you want to use the existing Combat charts, go for it. So long as Attack and Defense go up in the same way, everything stays balanced. The only disadvantages to switching charts I can see are: 1) The spread at very high level becomes a bit larger. But then, it's already huge; a little more shouldn't hurt. 2) Multirole characters become slightly more complicated. On the other hand, their combat is treated exactly the same way their skills and powers are, so it's less to remember.

OK, so combat is more like powers than like skills, but it's different from both. It's like skills in that you should get a certain amount of combat access up front (though not much). It's like powers in that different roles have different base progressions. It's like neither in that you should get a certain baseline degree of competence even in a combat skill you haven't put any points in. Also, the game is a lot less free with bonuses for combat than for the other two spheres.

I'm going to be using True20Chick's Weapon Groups with a couple changes.

* The "Blades" group will be split into "Light Blades" and "Heavy Blades". The former contains: Dagger, rapier, and sword (short).

* There will be a couple more groups: "Touch Attacks" (mostly for powers, though I can see a few other uses), and "Unarmed".

* Each exotic weapon will be treated as a "group" of its own. Ranged powers count as exotic weapons.

But weapon groups are not the only combat skills. The following are also on the list:

* Dodge and Parry. I was going to make these cost more, but the more I play with it the more I'm convinced this isn't necessary.

* Light Armor, Heavy Armor, and Shields. I'll also add "Two Weapons". Your rank in Heavy Armor can't exceed your rank in Light Armor.

* Maneuvers like: Disarm, Grapple, and Trip.

The latter two bullet points will work the way I was having metapower feats work above: If you have, say, Heavy Blades at Fast and Disarm at Medium, your disarm attempt uses the Medium progression. Ditto if they were reversed. Likewise, if you're wearing armor you're not very proficient with.

My own preference would also be to say that one's Parry cannot exceed one's attack bonus with the weapon one is using, but this isn't necessary to the system.

Things should be obvious enough by now. You spend combat skill points to move up progressions, yadda yadda yadda. However, we have to take into account the fact, mentioned above, that nonproficiency doesn't equal zero. Here's my take: The standard non-proficiency penalty is two progressions. Fast becomes Slow, Medium becomes Very Slow, Slow and Very Slow become None. In other words, a Warrior who's never tried a certain weapon in his life is as good as an Adept who has it fully trained. While an Adept who's never tried the weapon before is totally clueless.

So. Take the number of role-creation points you spent on combat. Subtract the number of role-creation points your non-proficiency level is worth. Multiply the result by two. The end result is that Fast, Medium, and Slow progressions get four points, and Very Slow progressions get two points: Basically, everyone can max out exactly two combat skills. I highly recommend that one of them be Dodge or Parry. :)

Further combat points cost 0.25 role-creation points each. The Combat Training feat gives two combat points to Fast, Medium, and Slow roles, and one to Very Slow roles.

Another twist: Combat Access. A role with Fast or Medium combat progression can take "Narrow Access" for -0.5 role-creation points. This means that the role only has access to five, count 'em, five combat skills... and the non-proficiency penalty drops to None! Some examples:

Martial Artist: Unarmed, Dodge or Parry (depending on style), Disarm or Thrown Weapons (likewise), Grapple, Trip.

Jedi: Exotic Weapon: Lightsaber, Gunnery, Parry, Two Weapons, and either Touch Attacks or one ranged power.

Fencer: Light Blades, Parry, Two Weapons, Disarm, and Light Armor.

(Medieval) Thug: Light Blades, Clubs or Thrown Weapons, Unarmed, Dodge, and Light Armor.

(Modern) Thug: Sidearms, Clubs or Longarms, Unarmed, Dodge, and Grapple.

(Medieval) Soldier: Light Blades, one other weapon group (Heavy Blades, Bows, Crossbows, or Polearms), Dodge, Light Armor, Shields.

(Modern) Soldier: Sidearms, Longarms, one other weapon group (Heavy Weapons, Gunnery, or Unarmed), Dodge, Light Armor. (I'm not suggesting that *all* soldiers are like this, of course. Many are pure Warriors. This guy has more skills - either because he had another career and was drafted into the military, or else because he's received some heavy-duty non-combat training. Or he might have higher saves, or access to both Expert and Warrior feats. Likewise, not every guy good at fencing is a Fencer as above.)

Warmage: Touch Attacks, one ranged power, Light Blades, Dodge, Light Armor or Shields.

(I'm getting the impression that Light Blades has to come before Heavy Blades, and likewise that guns have to go in the progression: Sidearms, Longarms, and Heavy Weapons. Thoughts on this?)

Fast Narrow roles get (3.5-0)*2 = 7 combat points, so they don't have enough to max out two combat skills at first level without feats. They can get one up to Fast and one to Medium. Combat Training likewise gives them 3.5 combat points - so they'll need four instances of it to get everything up to Fast. Thus they can get there at 1st level, if they wish to. (The existence of Fighting Styles will tend to reduce the number of feats needed, of course.)

Medium Narrow roles get (2.5-0)*2 = 5 combat points, and Combat Trainng gives them 2.5... so they also need four feats to get everything up to Medium.

Unlike powers, I don't recommend letting people jump up to higher progressions than their base. Doing so with a defense, or (say) a combat power, would be simply too tempting.

Finally, combat skills can also be stretched beyond their maximum, but in a more limited way. For every two combat skill points you put into a combat skill beyond your base progression, you get +1. Everything but Dodge and Parry is limited to a maximum bonus of +2. (We just got rid of Armor Training, Attack Focus, Attack Specialization, Dodge Focus, Parry Focus, Shield Training, and Weapon Training. Potentially also Improved Disarm, though the Combat Training feat as it stands is only half as good.)

Like I said, this part was a good deal more speculative. Any thoughts you have are appreciated!

Fighting Styles are going to need a bit of thought. More on them later!

[ValhallaGH]

The fifth skill point you assign gives a +2 bonus to the skill. (This is called Talented.) The sixth gives you a +1 (This is called Focussed.) The seventh and eighth also give +1. As an optional rule, you can keep going: It takes 2 skill points for each further +1 bonus.

My issue with this is that it removes the option of a Background that is Talented (or Focused) due to biological or cultural advantages but that isn't necessarily trained in the skill. I'd really miss that distinction.

EDIT: Expertise now gives you 2 skill points for a whole scene. You can get a new skill at half-ranks, or boost a Fast skill by +3, or a maxed-out skill by +1, or mix-and-match between different skills. If you want to make it more cinematic, have it give 4 skill points: A new Fast skill, or +5 for an existing Fast skill, or +2 for a maxed-out skill.

Definitely interesting. It makes Expertise less useful for untrained skills at low levels but more useful for barely-trained skills at high levels. That seems like a fair trade-off to me.

Languages are a sticky wicket. My thought: Each skill point you spend gives you a language. It's harsher than the existing rules, but I think it'll work - having languages increase automatically with level would too strange, and with higher progressions it would get ridiculous. The alternative would be to come up with a system where multiple ranks in a language actually means something, and each language would be its own skill. (Related languages could be used untrained.)

Take a look at this thread by elf23. It's extremely bare, and it's got some real oddities (20 ranks in a skill at first level ), but it seems like a step in the right direction. Though it does step (heavily) on the toes of Bluff, Disguise, and Perform (acting).

I'll go through each section with commentary, as appropriate to my input.

[ValhallaGH]

Now for powers. They work in identical fashion, except you don't get any power points by default, you *must* get them by trading in a feat for "Power Training". Also, of course, every power-using role has a base progression: Power Training gives a Fast role 4 power points, a Medium role 3, a Slow role 2, and a Very Slow role 1.

Important: Those few powers that don't depend on adept level or rank need to be "maxed out" to the base progression in order to work at all.

Seems fine and consistent.

To match the existing rules, increasing a power past its base progression works the same way as pushing skills beyond Fast, and costs twice as much.

Thus eliminating the need for Supernatural Talent and Focus. Again, simple and consistent.

However, I wonder if this is really necessary. If someone with a Very Slow role *wants* to spend four feats to get a power up to Fast, is there any reason not to let them?

Because that's what a Favored Power is for. If they want a single power at Fast progression and all others at Very Slow then they should go with a) a custom role with a really odd power progression, b) a custom role with a Very Slow progression and a Favored Power, or c) something else that I can't think of at this time.

EDIT: I'm starting to think that the "metapower" feats could be treated like powers too. Works like this: Suppose you have Fast Elemental Blast but Slow Widen. Your Elemental Blast is treated as having Slow ranks when you use it Widened. Basically, you use the lower ranks of your power and the metapower feat you're enhancing it with.

Now, this is an option that I can enthusiastically back. Among other things, it really lowers the power of outsiders (Titans, Balors, etc) and others that don't choose to focus on large groups and area effects.

EDIT: It occurs to me that we could now do the Talent a lot like Expertise: Have it give a free instance of Power Training, but for one round only. (Since powers can't ordinarily be emulated by Conviction, while Skill Training can.) Though personally I think the flavor might be better if it gave only half the benefit of Power Training but for a whole scene.

The flavor might be better but I doubt the game balance. I'd stick with the first option.

[The Shadow]

First a couple notes before I reply to your posts, VGH.

I've changed the name of the thread to something that seems... appropriate.

And I forgot to mention that split Attack/Defense progressions are still legal. Other kinds of split progressions are not. If it ever matters, the -0.5 Narrow access penalty applies to attack, not defense. (I might just remove the defenses from their lists, and say the "narrowness" only applies to attack stuff.)

And here's a fun role I just thought of:

Berserker

* Fast Narrow Attack, Medium Defense. Attack list is: Axes, Thrown Weapons, Light Armor, Grapple.

* Good Fort, Reflex.

* 4 skill points

* Warrior feat access

And, depending on the campaign, either of the following:

* 2 more skill points

* Fast SIngular power: Beast Shape: Bear

[The Shadow]

My issue with this is that it removes the option of a Background that is Talented (or Focused) due to biological or cultural advantages but that isn't necessarily trained in the skill. I'd really miss that distinction.

Well, if it helps, think of skill points (or at least the first couple) as being any combination of aptitude and training you like. I realize the terms "trained" and "untrained" don't help here, but basically "trained" just means "not totally clueless". You might have a clue because someone taught you, because you're a natural, or because you absorbed some basic knowledge by osmosis from your culture, but the fact is you have some small idea of what you're doing.

I have trouble imagining what it even means to be naturally talented in a skill you can't use at all. Take Medicine, for an egregious example. :) And if the skill *can* be used untrained, "training" is only a +1 bonus in the RAW. I'm not seeing any great loss here.

Definitely interesting. It makes Expertise less useful for untrained skills at low levels but more useful for barely-trained skills at high levels. That seems like a fair trade-off to me.

Yep. Basically, the bonus gets bigger when you need it to get bigger.

Another thing I've considered is to let Expertise (also? or instead of?) give 4 skill points for a single round.

Take a look at this thread by elf23. It's extremely bare, and it's got some real oddities (20 ranks in a skill at first level :shock: ), but it seems like a step in the right direction. Though it does step (heavily) on the toes of Bluff, Disguise, and Perform (acting).

I've seen it, but haven't had time to comment yet. The Caliphate Nights system might also have promise.

[The Shadow]

Now for powers. They work in identical fashion, except you don't get any power points by default, you *must* get them by trading in a feat for "Power Training". Also, of course, every power-using role has a base progression: Power Training gives a Fast role 4 power points, a Medium role 3, a Slow role 2, and a Very Slow role 1.

Important: Those few powers that don't depend on adept level or rank need to be "maxed out" to the base progression in order to work at all.

Seems fine and consistent.

It does give low-level adepts a bit more power than they have now, since the difference between the progressions is small - they can effectively get several extra powers with no significant penalties, then fill them in with more power points later to catch up. But I'm fine with that, because low-level adepts ALWAYS need more powers. :) I'm very fond of my adepts, and 1st level is HARD! Heck, even 3rd level is hard!

However, I wonder if this is really necessary. If someone with a Very Slow role *wants* to spend four feats to get a power up to Fast, is there any reason not to let them?

Because that's what a Favored Power is for. If they want a single power at Fast progression and all others at Very Slow then they should go with a) a custom role with a really odd power progression, b) a custom role with a Very Slow progression and a Favored Power, or c) something else that I can't think of at this time.

Honestly, ever since the role-creation system came out (and even before, when I came up with my own), favored powers have stuck out like a sore thumb. They are not consistently priced with the rest of the game, full stop. A Fast, Singular power is equal to 0.5 points *per level*. That's the equivalent of 10 feats at 20th level! And this is supposed to be equivalent to two favored feats?

Besides, the guy could want three Fast powers and the rest Very Slow. Though it would certainly take a lot of feats! Or one Medium power, a couple Slow powers, and the rest Very Slow.

EDIT: I'm starting to think that the "metapower" feats could be treated like powers too. Works like this: Suppose you have Fast Elemental Blast but Slow Widen. Your Elemental Blast is treated as having Slow ranks when you use it Widened. Basically, you use the lower ranks of your power and the metapower feat you're enhancing it with.

Now, this is an option that I can enthusiastically back. Among other things, it really lowers the power of outsiders (Titans, Balors, etc) and others that don't choose to focus on large groups and area effects.

Glad you like it. Could you clarify what you mean about outsiders, though? Full Widen would still only cost one feat.

EDIT: It occurs to me that we could now do the Talent a lot like Expertise: Have it give a free instance of Power Training, but for one round only. (Since powers can't ordinarily be emulated by Conviction, while Skill Training can.) Though personally I think the flavor might be better if it gave only half the benefit of Power Training but for a whole scene.

The flavor might be better but I doubt the game balance. I'd stick with the first option.

Hmmm. Maybe, but... Expertise (as done above) only gives you a half-trained skill for a scene; how is it egregiously bad to get a half-trained power for a scene, especially since powers are worth double what skills are?

[Baduin]

I am not sure what is the final aim of that modification. Are you creating an universal variant, or thinking about a particular genre? In particular, I do not know what do you think about the balance in game.

It is important, because powers interact in rather unpredictable ways with combat abilities and equipment (especially magic equipment, if you think about fantasy). Some powers are synergetic - eg Combat Sense, and others are wholly independent from combat ability - eg Enlarged Elemental Blast or Psychic Blast. Obviously, the impact of giving a character with high combat bonus some access to a power will be very different, depending that power is Combat Sense or Psychic Blast.

In my case, I try to keep all characters of equal level more or less equally powerful in combat and combat related skills and powers. As for non-combat skills an powers, each character should have something interesting to do from time to time, and should be able at least to help most of the time.

I also think that the M&M approach is superior in that regard, and with certain modification would serve well in a fantasy game.

[ValhallaGH]

Shadow, by outsider I'm referring to the monster type (which includes Titans and Balors). Given their Fast / Unlimited power progression, and the fact that both critters have the Widen Power feat, limiting their ability to blow up the party before the epic heroes can do anything seems like a good idea.

I'll work my way through the rest as I get the time.

[The Shadow]

I am not sure what is the final aim of that modification. Are you creating an universal variant, or thinking about a particular genre? In particular, I do not know what do you think about the balance in game.

By 'that modification' I assume you mean the whole shebang?

Basically, this is my sense of orderliness and system trying to tidy things. :) It offends my sense of parsimony to do skills one way and powers another. The original PDF of True20 of course did them the same way - max ranks or none - but that's not enough granularity for my taste. Whereas handling skills by the rank is too much, and with powers it would get ridiculous. Plus, my system eliminates the need for a lot of feats and charts, which is pleasing both from the point of view of memory load and of Occam's Razor. :)

Beyond parsimony, though, having a more unified system can suggest all sorts of ideas. It can suggest, for example, an exchange rate between skills and powers that's in line with the way the game already works. Structures created for one part of the game can be more clearly seen how to be applied to another, with suitable modification, of course.

The combat stuff is an attempt to push the pattern as far as it can go, suggested by the fact that a number of people over time have expressed a desire for Warriors (in particular) to not automatically be good at everything. However, if the attempt ultimately fails, the rest of the system can survive just fine.

As you go on to say, balance issues may well lie in wait. That's one reason why I'm posting, to help bring them to light.

Yes, M&M is definitely a worthy and satisfying system. It's one of my guiding lights in tinkering with True20, in fact. It's the fact that M&M works just fine with various powers and combat bonuses floating around more freely than in True20 gives me both the hope and the confidence that any balance issues can be addressed.

[Baduin]

Balance in M&M is based not on points, but on Power Level. The powers that matter are always at maximum. That is what is lacking in your version.

[The Shadow]

Baduin, I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength.

The skill progressions I suggested are an obvious extension from the ones in the Expert's Handbook. They have less granularity than existing skill points, so I'm not seeing any issues.

The power progressions also already exist, though for roles as a whole rather than powers for an individual character. The only balance problem I can see arising is in allowing low-level adepts to have more powers, but at a slight penalty.

You seem to think that having powers at less than maximum is useless; I guess if you're right, everyone will do their best to max them out. But I do tend to disagree with you - In M&M, defenses tend to be maxed out as well, and that is distinctly not true in True20.

The combat progressions are, as I've repeatedly admitted, the most speculative and prone to the most unintended consequences. I'd be glad to hear of them and suggestions on how to make them better. It's just that I hate loose ends.

You appear to see a fatal flaw in the whole idea that I'm just not seeing?

VGH: Any more thoughts?