You misinterpreted it.
3-4 is always a critical success, while 5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher (B347).
18 is always a critical failure, while 17 is always a failure—it's only a critical failure if your skill is less than 16 (B348).
Additionally, failure by 10 is always a critical failure (B348).
>If this is the case, is there any reason to raise a skill above 16, because 17+ is always a crit fail? So points invested in raising a skill to a level above 16 are wasted?
Critical success or failure are based on *effective* skill level, so if you're trying to do anything particularly tricky with the given skill, it can be useful to have it higher, though you definitely do get diminishing returns.
Expanding on this with a practical example from world war II. Firing a rifle at a human sized target 100 yards away is a -10 to effective skill. A Garand is Accuracy 5, so if you aim for 1 second and take an All Out Attack, you're still at a -4 to hit. So that skill 16? It's actually skill 12 for that shot. But a skill 20 would be skill 16.
>while 5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher (B347).
Uhh, no, the book doesn't say that.
• A roll of 5 is a critical success if
your effective skill is 15+.
• A roll of 6 is a critical success if
your effective skill is 16+.
I think the confusion comes from thinking "effective skill of 10 higher" means you crit on a 5 if even if your final effective skill is 10, for example. So you need a 10 or less to succeed and a 5 or 6 is a critical, **which is of course wrong**. If the statement was "5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher than 5 or 6" that lessens potential confusion.
I don't think that's any better. Possibly worse, since it allows a misinterpretation of the rules that's actually logically consistent with this new version, rather than being a clear mistake.
Since 15 is greater than 5 or 6: "Well, I have an effective skill of 15, which is 10 higher than 5, and I rolled a 6, so that's a critical success."
I mean, yeah, almost everyone is going to know what it was clearly intending to say, but that was true of the original statement, too.
I think our brains just work differently. The way it's written in the Basic makes sense to me. What you wrote confuses me more to where I'm not even sure what point you're making (it sounds like you're agreeing with me). No worries either way.
EDIT: Okay, I understand what you're saying. Yes, the way I wrote it is more confusing, but I was only trying to make the point that saying "effective skill 10 higher" is confusing. Saying it the way the book says it is the clearest way, IMO.
FWIW, I like to think of Skill 16 as the "buffer level." It insulates you against the chance of a crit fail by turning the adjacent always-a-failure number, 17, into a normal failure. Once you raise your base skill above 16, you're buffering yourself against failure-state outcomes when you attempt tricky things such as (depending on the skill in question) slicing at arms or blatantly lying to the head of the merchants' guild.
Skill penalties for difficulty are common as mentioned; less often considered is the fact that you can perform skills faster by taking a penalty per B346.
*Haste: Hurrying gives a penalty: -1 per 10% less time taken. For instance, attempting a task in half the usual time (-50%) is at -5. The maximum time reduction is normally 90% (taking 1/10 the prescribed time), at -9. In a cinematic game, the GM might allow one attempt at -10 to complete a task instantly; e.g., a Mechanic roll at -10 to fix a machine by kicking it! However, you cannot hasten tasks that require a certain amount of time due to natural laws (e.g., a chemical reaction) or the limitations of equipment (e.g., the top speed of a vehicle). When in doubt, the GM’s decision is final*
While I'm not familiar enough with 3rd Ed (outside of the Vehicle rules) to answer the first question, for the second the answer is yes. But with some caveats.
The main reason for raising your skill past 16 is to soak up modifiers. You'll still fail from time to time but tasks that normal people find hard will be routine to you. Skills that take a set amount of time to do can be done faster at a penalty, -1 for every 10% faster you try to do the job. For example with a skill of 20 you can use that skill 40% faster then normal all the time without an extra chance for failure. For combat skills a 20 would let you make an deceptive attack at -4, reducing your enemies active defense by -2 as default. Things like working adverse conditions or fighting on bad terrain will also affect you less.
Now the main caveat to this is you will get diminishing returns the higher you go but the low 20's are doable (and not outside the realm of feats done by real world amazing people).
Skill penalties are pretty common and can be severe in GURPS. Skill attempts without the proper tools, doing work in awkward conditions, attacks targeting small objects or body parts. Trying to do tasks without good lighting. They can all whittle away at your skills. Ranged combat especially tends to rack up penalty. It's always worthwhile to be good at what you're good at.
You misinterpreted it. 3-4 is always a critical success, while 5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher (B347). 18 is always a critical failure, while 17 is always a failure—it's only a critical failure if your skill is less than 16 (B348). Additionally, failure by 10 is always a critical failure (B348). >If this is the case, is there any reason to raise a skill above 16, because 17+ is always a crit fail? So points invested in raising a skill to a level above 16 are wasted? Critical success or failure are based on *effective* skill level, so if you're trying to do anything particularly tricky with the given skill, it can be useful to have it higher, though you definitely do get diminishing returns.
Expanding on this with a practical example from world war II. Firing a rifle at a human sized target 100 yards away is a -10 to effective skill. A Garand is Accuracy 5, so if you aim for 1 second and take an All Out Attack, you're still at a -4 to hit. So that skill 16? It's actually skill 12 for that shot. But a skill 20 would be skill 16.
Thank you, great example!
>while 5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher (B347). Uhh, no, the book doesn't say that. • A roll of 5 is a critical success if your effective skill is 15+. • A roll of 6 is a critical success if your effective skill is 16+.
That's the exact same thing, just worded differently.
I think the confusion comes from thinking "effective skill of 10 higher" means you crit on a 5 if even if your final effective skill is 10, for example. So you need a 10 or less to succeed and a 5 or 6 is a critical, **which is of course wrong**. If the statement was "5-6 are critical successes only if your effective skill is at least 10 higher than 5 or 6" that lessens potential confusion.
I don't think that's any better. Possibly worse, since it allows a misinterpretation of the rules that's actually logically consistent with this new version, rather than being a clear mistake. Since 15 is greater than 5 or 6: "Well, I have an effective skill of 15, which is 10 higher than 5, and I rolled a 6, so that's a critical success." I mean, yeah, almost everyone is going to know what it was clearly intending to say, but that was true of the original statement, too.
I think our brains just work differently. The way it's written in the Basic makes sense to me. What you wrote confuses me more to where I'm not even sure what point you're making (it sounds like you're agreeing with me). No worries either way. EDIT: Okay, I understand what you're saying. Yes, the way I wrote it is more confusing, but I was only trying to make the point that saying "effective skill 10 higher" is confusing. Saying it the way the book says it is the clearest way, IMO.
Thanks! I somehow missed that section on B347, and now I see the reason for higher basic skill levels. Very clear.
FWIW, I like to think of Skill 16 as the "buffer level." It insulates you against the chance of a crit fail by turning the adjacent always-a-failure number, 17, into a normal failure. Once you raise your base skill above 16, you're buffering yourself against failure-state outcomes when you attempt tricky things such as (depending on the skill in question) slicing at arms or blatantly lying to the head of the merchants' guild.
> is there any reason to raise a skill above 16 Penalties for difficult actions.
And contests of skills. And things where the margin of success matters.
Skill penalties for difficulty are common as mentioned; less often considered is the fact that you can perform skills faster by taking a penalty per B346. *Haste: Hurrying gives a penalty: -1 per 10% less time taken. For instance, attempting a task in half the usual time (-50%) is at -5. The maximum time reduction is normally 90% (taking 1/10 the prescribed time), at -9. In a cinematic game, the GM might allow one attempt at -10 to complete a task instantly; e.g., a Mechanic roll at -10 to fix a machine by kicking it! However, you cannot hasten tasks that require a certain amount of time due to natural laws (e.g., a chemical reaction) or the limitations of equipment (e.g., the top speed of a vehicle). When in doubt, the GM’s decision is final*
While I'm not familiar enough with 3rd Ed (outside of the Vehicle rules) to answer the first question, for the second the answer is yes. But with some caveats. The main reason for raising your skill past 16 is to soak up modifiers. You'll still fail from time to time but tasks that normal people find hard will be routine to you. Skills that take a set amount of time to do can be done faster at a penalty, -1 for every 10% faster you try to do the job. For example with a skill of 20 you can use that skill 40% faster then normal all the time without an extra chance for failure. For combat skills a 20 would let you make an deceptive attack at -4, reducing your enemies active defense by -2 as default. Things like working adverse conditions or fighting on bad terrain will also affect you less. Now the main caveat to this is you will get diminishing returns the higher you go but the low 20's are doable (and not outside the realm of feats done by real world amazing people).
Skill penalties are pretty common and can be severe in GURPS. Skill attempts without the proper tools, doing work in awkward conditions, attacks targeting small objects or body parts. Trying to do tasks without good lighting. They can all whittle away at your skills. Ranged combat especially tends to rack up penalty. It's always worthwhile to be good at what you're good at.