Revisiting Learn Masters Slots - Any Interest?

[Geras]

So, I'm concerned that the number of learn masters slots has become generous to the point of near absurdity.

For example, on Edwynn I can raise 15 skills to rank 60 or above, and my stats aren't even that impressive. I'm not sure there are even 15 skills I want to get to rank 60 in the whole game. There are a lot of trades where you don't really need to go to rank 60. Lunare's highest spell is well below 60 and I'm sure there are other elements and moons where that applies too. Really, the Grand Master slots themselves are REALLY high too. I mean, how many skills are there where the difference between rank 74 and rank 75 matters?

Could things be toned down a little maybe? Set the Grand Master level at 65 and the Master level at 45 and Adept at 25 maybe? I'm just throwing those numbers out there. I'm fine with still being able to purchase straight to 36 or even to a bit higher in chargen. I actually really like that. I just think the current situation doesn't allow for enough specialization. Does anyone else feel the same?

Here's the old thread on the subject:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=499

[Dice]

I agree with this, with a slight caveat. I feel the *number* of slots is okay but the *definition* of the slots should change. My original suggestion for the tiered slots was predicated on the idea the slots would remain as 25-41, 42-60, 61+.

How I think I'd do it with the current setup:

Retain being able to buy up to 36 in chargen (I am a BIG FAN of this)

Proficient slots (36-46): our current 'adept' slots (which, right now, go 36-60)
Adept slots (47-60): Our current 'master' slots (which, right now, go 60-74)
Master slots (61+): Our current 'grandmaster' slots (which, right now, go 75+)

This should still limit the number of Grandmaster skills that people can have to 3 only, but would also do a lot to address the issue of being great at everything.

[Leech]

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about it becoming a problem. You can get a lot of skills, but honestly it's sooo much XP to get them past 60. I think if you're RPing that much, and contributing to the world, you deserve a pretty boss character.

[Kinaed]

At this stage, I'm okay with that. The main issue for me has always been people being able to call themselves a grandmaster in 10-20 skills, not with regards to how well their skills work in general.

The only place this is an issue is in PvP - and I'm not sure someone grandmastered at rank 75 should be that much better than someone mastered at rank 74.

[Geras]

Perhaps the word description of the skill level could be separated from where the slots kick in? IE call the slots something other than "Grand Master" and "Master" and adjust the thresholds where they go? I dunno...

I think this applies to far more areas than just combat though. Edwynn could conceivably get to 60 all ten moon/elements, meditation, forge, two combat skills, and conceivably pick up another trade, all with out spending any xp on improving his very mediocre mental stats. That seems like a bit much.

At this stage, I'm okay with that. The main issue for me has always been people being able to call themselves a grandmaster in 10-20 skills, not with regards to how well their skills work in general.

To me it's a bit I dunno... dissappointing? when a master and a grandmaster each perform equally well in all meaningful ways, and I don't think that only applies to PvP. It applies to most if not all trade skills IMHO, as well as magic, stealth... just about any skill I can think of. I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean here actually.

Edit: Hopefully I'm not reading a post that agrees with me and Dice and thinking it disagrees lol! Though it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. :/

[Kinaed]

There is considerable expense in getting skills up. If you get your skills up really high and don't put expense into your stats, your skills will have lower efficiacy as someone who has higher stats and higher skills. It all costs XP, and it's a big doozy to spend.

Rank 75 is where grandmastering starts, but it's a privileged title, not about getting more mechanics out of skills. Really, by the time you're adept, you should be pretty comfortable.

Yes, you can get a lot of skill ranks with the new tiered system - more so than before - if you have the XP. I don't see that as a problem, however, as XP fuels that advancement, and activity fuels XP. In short, people who are up there have earned it.

[Geras]

I guess there are two things going on here:

1/ The change to where "master" and "grandmaster" kick in. I don't think anyone objects to this, and I think it was a positive change.

2/ The increase to the number of skills that players can "max" from the standpoint of code benefits.

It's 2 that worries me, as it removes a major barrier to twinking by older/more established players. As Takta pointed out to me in another discussion, this game is one where given enough time and RP, XP goals will sooner or later be reached. I'd rather not see any bard-blacksmith-ninja-mages personally.

Anyways, cheers.

[Kinaed]

Maybe we should take a broader view than that of just three players. I'll throw up a poll. :)

The poll is up. Please respond at the top of the first page of this topic.

[Inertia]

There wasn't an "abstain" button but I wanted to acknowledge the poll and explain my stance, so I chose the three-skill option.

I hate to admit it, but it's probably best to have some sort of limitation on skills if for no other reason than there are people like me: well-meaning and unable to keep from picking up extra things that "make sense at the time," but in retrospect throw a character totally out of balance in terms of strengths and weaknesses.

Not having much experience with coded skills yet, I don't know what I'd consider reasonable for one character to learn in their lifetime. I think this is further skewed by the fact that some skills probably aren't worth advancing past a certain rank (though if there's something grandmaster chandlers can do, let me know!). I like Renaissance men but it's reasonable for the purpose of game balance that every extra skill sphere you try would require more XP, and limit your mastery more than the last.

[Kinaed]

Aye, from the poll results, it's looking as if people would prefer a stronger limit on skills.

To limit people to two spheres, we'd need to have a max pool between five and eight skills at master+ ranks.

I think to achieve that, we're looking at something along the lines of this:

1 GM skill
3-8 Master skills
5-10 Adept skills

Nothing below that regulated...

Having said the above, I wonder how many people want to kill me. :) But that's probably what it'd take to reasonably limit people to two spheres of mastery.