Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 17, 2021, 06:23:10 PM
I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced.

The only edition where fighters and magic-users were "fairly well balanced" was 4e which, coincidentally was also the most hated of editions.

I mean I am sure that some people thought that playing a 1st level magic user with his 1 hp wearing a non magical dress and armed with a stick was balanced because one day he may be able to cast Wish.

Not with an Int of 9. No wish for you.

Darts and flasks of oil worked well. And hirelings. And sleep was staggeringly powerful. Low level MUs in older editions weren't helpless, they just didn't go pew pew pew pew all day. By name level, balance shifted toward being full time casters with a lot of power, but since saves improved in absolute terms, the effects got through less frequently. Fighters stopped being affected by HD-based spells (like sleep), and saved more frequently.

Can't comment on 4e, because I've never played it. I like some of the design decisions they were talking about before it was released, but I was turned off by how some of the people behind it responded to criticism over things like the (broken) math behind skill challenges, so I wasn't going to out of my way, and nobody in any the groups I was part of ran a game.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2021, 09:45:41 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 18, 2021, 08:39:38 PM
No, I meant your RPG preferences. Partisan politics is just as toxic in games as it is in elections. You're raging like a typical [pick a side] in the culture wars... over a game.

I'm not the one decrying how other people play, nor was I in any way raging. I just disagree with your conclusions about influences on WotC-era D&D and whether said influences are good or bad.

You like OSR and that's fine. I don't like the OSR and prefer 4E, that should be fine too if you're not one of the OneTrueWayist OSR assholes I've had the misfortune of knowing.

You were dismissive, hostile, and applied simplistic, irrational stereotypes to people who like games you don't.

Your current post is a perfect example. I never mentioned the OSR. I didn't even mention an OSR game. And I never claimed I preferred one type of game over another. Yet based on nothing, you jumped to all those conclusions. And then suggested I might be an asshole if I don't meet your arbitrary and undefined standards.

Yep. You're a raging political partisan... over games.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2021, 09:45:41 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 18, 2021, 09:02:11 PM
I have no clue what you're going on about. What I was trying to say is that you don't have to keep calling a WoD magic system. You can call it the setting-neutral "syntactic magic", "verb/noun," "realm-based", "praxis/nemesis," etc.

Well, seeing as how I was specifically referencing the actual Mage the Ascension game system (because I actually like the game) and all it's attending mechanics, calling the mechanics by one of your dumbass terms wouldn't be as clear as just saying "the Mage magic system."

Yeah, and I wasn't talking about the MtA magic system when I first mentioned Ars Magica earlier in the thread.

For those who don't know the mechanic, a syntactic magic system is one where the rules provide guidelines for producing freeform effects within certain parameters defined by a syntax (hence, "syntactic magic"). There are several different ways to do a syntactic magic system. These include verb/noun-based, realm-based, and (more recently) realm/anti-ream-based. GURPS provides setting-agnostic explanations of these mechanics in its Magic and Thaumatology supplements.

Ars Magica uses the "verb/noun"-based mechanic; GURPS also refers to this as a "word"-based mechanic. In this mechanic you combine two magical "words" to perform magic: a "verb" defining what you want to do (create, destroy, perceive, transmute, etc) and a "noun" defining what you want to affect (air, earth, water, fire, animals, minds, etc). Verbs and nouns are treated as distinct skills with numerical ratings. AM has 5 verbs and 10 nouns. GURPS offers 10 verbs and 14 nouns.

Mage: The Ascension, Dark Ages: Mage, and Mage: The Awakening all use a "realm"-based mechanic. In a realm-based mechanic, the nouns are folded into "realms" where different ranks in a statistic associated with the realm provide access to different verbs. Unlike nouns, realms may encompasses categories of action rather than just things (e.g. humanity, evil, luck). The verbs aren't named or particularly well-defined in MtAs, but in MtAw they are fairly well-defined named as 19 "practices." MtAs and MtAw used a single set of realms for all magician characters (9 in the former, plus a 10th in the latter), while DAM gives each magical tradition a unique set of 4 realms each (but no named or well-defined verbs). GURPS doesn't provide a fixed set of realms, though it does provide 6 levels of verbs.

Opening the Dark SRD uses a further variation of the realm-based mechanic that, in the absence of a better name, I call a realm/anti-realm mechanic. It doesn't limit verbs to requiring specific levels, instead applying scaling penalties based on the power of the intended effect. Each realm is assigned an anti-realm. The caster has an advantage on magic rolls using that realm to affect mundane manifestations of the anti-realm, but a disadvantage on magic rolls to affect supernatural manifestations of the anti-realm. OtD assigns each magical tradition its own set of realms and realm/anti-realm pairings are assigned on a per-tradition basis.

GURPS states that having different sets of realms for different magical traditions can make interactions between them more difficult to adjudicate compared to having everyone use the same set of realms. Despite that, I prefer having multiple magical traditions with their own sets of realms. (In order to adjudicate realms of differing levels of influence, I'd apply a cost/slot multiplier if it ever becomes relevant.)

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2021, 09:45:41 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 09:18:10 PM
The only edition where fighters and magic-users were "fairly well balanced" was 4e which, coincidentally was also the most hated of editions.

Pretty much. I mean AD&D had better high end balance than 3e, but it also had a rather atrocious low end that overrewarded fighters.

Frankly, I consider any system based around balance across the entire level range (versus at each level) to be horrible design since it's way too easy for games to never cover all of the levels and leave one or more players sucking for the entire campaign.

Probably better balanced at high levels due to a mix of things like capping hp and making saving throws better with level instead of worse.

Quote from: Pat on February 18, 2021, 09:46:07 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 17, 2021, 06:23:10 PM
I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced.

The only edition where fighters and magic-users were "fairly well balanced" was 4e which, coincidentally was also the most hated of editions.

I mean I am sure that some people thought that playing a 1st level magic user with his 1 hp wearing a non magical dress and armed with a stick was balanced because one day he may be able to cast Wish.

Not with an Int of 9. No wish for you.

Well that sounds balanced - all the suck of low levels combined with all the suck of not being able to cast high level spells.

QuoteDarts and flasks of oil worked well. And hirelings. And sleep was staggeringly powerful. Low level MUs in older editions weren't helpless, they just didn't go pew pew pew pew all day. By name level, balance shifted toward being full time casters with a lot of power, but since saves improved in absolute terms, the effects got through less frequently. Fighters stopped being affected by HD-based spells (like sleep), and saved more frequently.

Darts are not doing much with a Magic Users THAC0, hirelings can be used by any class so that one is at least balanced and you were lucky if your DM let you choose Sleep as your spell rather then rolling for it randomly. 

This not very convincing as your main argument towards some kind of "balance"

QuoteCan't comment on 4e, because I've never played it. I like some of the design decisions they were talking about before it was released, but I was turned off by how some of the people behind it responded to criticism over things like the (broken) math behind skill challenges, so I wasn't going to out of my way, and nobody in any the groups I was part of ran a game.

Ah Skill Challenges - the gift that keeps on giving.

Quote from: Pat on February 18, 2021, 09:52:08 PM
You were dismissive, hostile, and applied simplistic, irrational stereotypes to people who like games you don't.

Welcome to the Internet - I see you must be new here?

Quote from: Pat on February 18, 2021, 09:52:08 PM
You were dismissive, hostile, and applied simplistic, irrational stereotypes to people who like games you don't.

To quote you, "Oh, you're one of those..."

By which I mean...
A) people who think that someone not agreeing with everything they say means the person disagreeing with them dismissive and hostile.

B) people who resort to insults when their arguments fall apart.

C) people who project all their flaws onto others (seriously, re-read this thread, you don't come off well).

Since by your comments here you've indicated you have nothing left but insults to add, I don't feel any need to reply to you further at this time. If getting the last word in makes you feel better though, go ahead.

On topic; I don't care what anyone's preferences are about class design are so long as they don't insist everyone must abide by their preferences or you're playing wrong.

My personal preferences in class design are that I don't consider TSR-era D&D the pinnacle of design and beyond reproach. I also lean towards martial/caster parity more in line with how 4E handled things because I think that better aligns with the fantasy genre as a whole (and specifically with the gonzo fantasy of Thundarr the Barbarian which is one of the main thematic inspirations for my game's setting).*

I also lean towards creating nested decisions in character building to reduce option paralysis and prefer advancement in the form of growing breadth of ability to ever increasing ability, though the charts I saw of Warrior/Wizard/Wanderer up thread where increased level leads to increased specialization are equally valid as an approach to game design; though I think too much specialization can be a problem if the design doesn't allow a smaller party to cover the bases expected of an adventuring party.

That is not an insurmountable problem, just a potential one you need to consider any time a system links advancement to ever narrower focus; particularly focuses that require specific support from other players to be viable or result in too many bases for a small party to be able to cover.

* Mage gets a pass from me because the idea there is that everyone is playing a mage so parity is achieved by simply not making the weaker "class" an option. That's another way to solve the martial/caster power disparity for a system (as would the opposite for, say, a Conan campaign where the only spellcasters are the evil priests and sorcerers while the PC heroes must be martial types).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 18, 2021, 10:54:40 PM
Yeah, and I wasn't talking about the MtA magic system when I first mentioned Ars Magica earlier in the thread.

And I wasn't quoting you or your comments in the quote that drew your ire (beyond my joke about how you immediately appear when the words "consensual reality" are uttered... made even funnier by your almost immediate reply).

No, I was discussing MY preferences in a free form magic system, which would not be GURPS (I've tried it; not my cup of tea) or Ars Magica (read it, but not played it, because I'm even less comfortable with RPing practices outright condemned by Catholicism than I am with playing a cleric devoted to one of D&D's fictional deities).

But those are just my preferences and you're welcome to yours.

Well I'm using D6 Fantasy as a base, which has by default a free-form magic system not terribly dissimilar from ars magicka, but of course I want to customize it further. The default magical (extranormal) skills, before change, are favor strife divination for priests, and conjuration apportation alteration and divination for wizards. I'm thinking I'll retain the first for devotees of the most high, while everyone else will choose (thinking 3e here ) domains/descriptors (elemental, evil, nature) or traditional D&D schools (necromancy, alteration, invocation etc).

For balancing limitations we'll probably do as follows; #known spells has no limit, prepared limit will be 1 per die of relevant skill (necromancy, fire, illusion etc) and use of the prepared spell will cost a fate point (or cause a wound if no fate is available) and require skill rolls to build the spell total (TN, DC, etc) across multiple actions or rounds. I'd also add armors normal bonus as a penalty to that required total and maybe increase the fate cost by 1 per category (light medium heavy) of total armor worn. Given that I also mandate a daily 3 fate that returns at a rate of 1 between encounters or fully with rest (only the minimum 3 regenerate) , on top of what one can hoard elstwise, and paired with a similar fate cost for things like a D6 mechanical equivalent to cleave or whirlwind attack, this should force some relative parity. This becomes a little more difficult if magic can run the full range of utility that it can in D&D, in some scenarios stepping on the toes or roles of other classes (invisibility, silence, mage hand...and the thief is jealous).

ETA
probably better limit the number of spells in effect at one time to 1 per die of extranormal attribute (which governs magic skills)

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 18, 2021, 11:20:11 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 17, 2021, 06:23:10 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 17, 2021, 03:26:02 PM
The way to fix this is to, putting it reductively, beef martials and nerf casters. For example:

• Give martials access to strongholds and followers.
• Give martials access to... sigh... qi cultivation.
• Force casters to specialize in particular fields of magic.

I think it's important to remember that fighters and magic-users were fairly well balanced in OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D1e. Most of the problems in later editions (*cough* 3rd *cough*) were because they stripped away all the features that kept casters in check.

Part of that stripping away though, particularly with adding at-will spells to the mix, wasn't so much about boosting casters (though that was the effect when things got tweaked without real consideration) as it was adjusting to the market in terms of genre imitation.

Outside of self-referential material the way fantasy treats magic has changed a LOT in the nearly 50 years since D&D came about, in the 30 since 2e came out and even in the 20 since 3e came out.

And I'll name the elephant in the room; the single most defining system of magic in pop culture for anyone under the age of 40 is Harry Potter and it's pretty much the opposite of Vancian resource management.

The next most is going to be any of the pop culture series focused on hidden magic people; Buffy, Charmed, the Magicians, Merlin, etc. They're not Vancian resource management either. For that matter almost no fantasy story outside of The Dying Earth and self-referential D&D tie-ins (and not even all of them) uses D&D's magic system.

This made D&D a horrible fit for anyone getting into gaming because of their exposure to general fantasy pop culture. You come in with ideas in your head of what you want your character to be like and, frankly, TSR D&D fought you every step of the way.m

And it didn't just fight the spellcasters; it's nearly impossible to create a fighter in the image of those seen on film and television, because armor played such a massive role in your ability to survive and hit points took so long to recover that their representing skill and fatigue in avoiding damage fell flat.

Outside of D&D, fantasy heroes do NOT constantly run around in plate or use shields (nor would their real world equivalents; gambesons, lighter mail shirts and brigandine would be what travelers expecting danger would wear). Maybe they get a plate armor upgrade for a big fight, but mostly fantasy heroes are depicted in what would be light or even no armor in D&D terms.

Meanwhile, you expect your starting wizard to fragile compared to a fighter; wizard as glass cannon is a known trope; what they don't expect is that you get one pretty weak spell and then spend the rest of the adventure hiding or maybe throwing darts. Oh, if anyone hits you while you're casting (and somehow doesn't kill you) that one spell automatically fails.

This was another reason why, once I got driven out of D&D by my shit DM, that Palladium's system just felt right to me. The men-at-arms' automatic parry and higher base hit points made lighter armor not suicide (it also made spellcasters not quite so fragile).

But this failure at genre emulation is where a lot of 3e's changes began. Armor got a max Dex bonus so agile heroes would be better off in lighter armor, spellcasters got more spells and getting them off without failure made rarer.

Then Harry Potter exploded and that's why late 3.5e started getting at-will spell options (reserve feats) and every edition since has baked at-will spells into the classes.

My own approach was beef up fighters (not to wuxia levels, but peak human is possible to build for), and really scale down combat magic. Your default attack spells hit about as hard as a sword or bow used by a strong warrior; making combat magic more akin to an equalizer for the physically weak vs. the limited use fight enders common to D&D.

This also explains why combat magic isn't universal because it only matches what physical prowess can achieve (particularly when the warrior wields a magic weapon) rather than eclipsing it.

There's still big magic too, but it's got casting times of minutes to even hours and so isn't something you'll be pulling out in a fight (it might be something you get into a fight to prevent someone completing though).

Whilen it may be hard to create a film or television fighter i feel your discounting just how many people are exposed to fantasy through video games where armor (no matter how impractocal) is extremely common.

This is also why many people enjoy spell points, mana bars and all that you know.

My problem with the fighter in 5e for example is that most of them dont really feel like they'rr that good at fighting. They are certainly more athletic, but they dont have any fancy tricks besides the battlemaster. 4e adressed this but i dont like the way they did it much. I really, really like DCC's mighty deed of arms and made a version of it for my own system as well. DCC also informed my prefrences in magic, though i already played Warhammer by the time i interacted with it. You can cast spells as much as you want but theres an inherent danger to it that i love.

I also did what you did in my home system, beefing up fighters. They always hit first in melee(its simultaneous initiative), strong critical hits, and one other thing was that i let them attack again if they kill something which lets them wade through weak enemies easier, and they have good saves. Ive been playtesting a bit over a year and at first people though it was really OP, but ober time they've warmed up to the idea that the fighter is as effective as the mage. The main difference is that the fighter has a different set of descisions to make (mages are more about picking the right tool from their spells known, fighters are more about being in the right place to be most effective and choosing targets.) Though in my expirence of TRPGs as a whole...i think it may be location and enemies that have the biggest impact on how fun fights are if the rest of the game is competently made.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 18, 2021, 11:21:17 PM

QuoteDarts and flasks of oil worked well. And hirelings. And sleep was staggeringly powerful. Low level MUs in older editions weren't helpless, they just didn't go pew pew pew pew all day. By name level, balance shifted toward being full time casters with a lot of power, but since saves improved in absolute terms, the effects got through less frequently. Fighters stopped being affected by HD-based spells (like sleep), and saved more frequently.

Darts are not doing much with a Magic Users THAC0, hirelings can be used by any class so that one is at least balanced and you were lucky if your DM let you choose Sleep as your spell rather then rolling for it randomly. 

This not very convincing as your main argument towards some kind of "balance"

B/X 1st level magic-user: THAC0 19
B/X 3rd level fighter: THAC0 19
AD&D1 1st level magic-user: THAC0 20
AD&D1 2nd level fighter: THAC0 20

There's no THAC0 difference between starting characters. The B/X fighter probably has a +1, maybe a +2, from Strength, but no other bonuses. A typical AD&D1 fighter will have none (the odds of rolling a 17 or higher are pretty low, barring cheating or exceptional rolling methods). The main difference at low levels is AC and hp. They combine to give fighters much more staying power than MUs, but that's only important for close combat. Weapon selection is the other main factor, and that primarily impacts damage in close combat, and range in ranged combat (in 1e; in Basic the overall differences in THAC0 or hp are smaller, and MUs do less damage with thrown pointy things, but flaming oil is still very effective). Overall, starting MUs are perfectly competent 2nd or 3rd row missile throwers. They start to lose out in comparison to fighters as levels increase, but they also expand in magical prowess.

It's true that not every magic-user gets sleep, but there's a 2 in 10 chance of randomly rolling the spell in 1e, and all MUs are guaranteed read magic, plus at least one offensive, defensive, and miscellaneous spell, so the odds are they'll have something effective. For instance, hold portal can easily save a party, ventriloquism is very effective at avoiding entire encounters, and charm person effectively turns monsters into lackeys. B/X will vary by campaign, because the 1st level spell choice is left to either the DM or the player (at the DM's discretion).

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2021, 12:35:07 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 18, 2021, 09:52:08 PM
You were dismissive, hostile, and applied simplistic, irrational stereotypes to people who like games you don't.

To quote you, "Oh, you're one of those..."

That was after you said you "escaped" as if game systems other people liked were prisons, used the very loaded word "deny" (denier), said "did you even watch" when you were the one who missed the point being made, said I was "completely ignoring" your primary example when you gave a list of media and I responded to one I was familiar with, assigned me membership in a group, implied members of that group "mistake the bubble for the reality", claimed I "[g]ripe[d] about WotC-era D&D", and abused the poor innocent word word "tautology" (3 times).

You were literally applying false stereotypes, using those (false) stereotypes to justify your attacks and ignoring what I said, while using very loaded terms that portrayed everything as a binary choice between your (right) way and the (wrong and monolithic) way that other people play games. That's why I said you're "one of those", because you clearly see things games though the lens of partisan politics (which I spelled out in the next post, after you jumped to a very weird conclusion).

And now you're claiming (twice) that all I've done is insult you, when all I've done is call out your insulting behavior.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2021, 12:35:07 AM
My personal preferences in class design are that I don't consider TSR-era D&D the pinnacle of design and beyond reproach.

Neither do I.

I doubt you'll listen, but don't you see how statements like this make it very hard to carry on a conversation? You're not addressing any point I made. Instead, you're taking a few specific statements I made, and then using passive wording to assign me a general (and false) set of beliefs, which you've couched in very negative way. If I did that to you, what options would you have when you respond? There's no option to advance the conversation, because nothing you said was addressed. So your either options are either to ignore it, which people could take as tacitly admitting you believe in things you didn't. Or you could point out that you don't hold those beliefs. I did the second, and now you're accusing me of insulting you.

Quote from: Pat on February 19, 2021, 04:39:13 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 19, 2021, 12:35:07 AM
To quote you, "Oh, you're one of those..."

That was after you said you "escaped" as if game systems other people liked were prisons,

Oh geez. Bad communication kills I guess.

Since apparently you missed it on some of the many other threads we've shared comments on (and so I felt no need to repeat the story again... though apparently I must now) I've related the story behind why I despise old school D&D and the primary factor in that was an abusive DM who almost drove me from the hobby entirely.

What I escaped, and was referencing, was a bad DM who used AD&D like a club and so poisoned my view of old-school style play that 30+ years later I'd rather eat garbage than play it. But I've also made plain too that this is a personal hang up of mine and do not begrudge others their preferences.

If I had not discovered Palladium's Robotech and had friends willing to play that with me, I wouldn't even be here today. So, yes, I consider Palladium to have saved me from a bad situation involving AD&D giving up on something I've loved for the majority of my life.

I'm sorry you misread those remarks as anything other personal bitterness at specific past experiences and took them instead to be a blanket dismissal of all who like the older editons of D&D. It seems to have been the root for your choice to read everything that followed in the most uncharitable ways possible.

Quoteand abused the poor innocent word word "tautology" (3 times).

Abused? Words don't have feelings. I felt that word for a thing named for itself feels apt for what D&D has become... a text almost completely self-referential with almost nothing outside it allowed to be added to it.

And my view on that is connected too with my other source of bitterness at D&D in a general sense; the utter disdain shown by nearly everyone towards MY favorite system (other than my own which is a love letter to it); 4E. I have repeatedly expressed that I don't begrudge others their preferences, but I am almost never afforded the same
courtesy... not only is the system bad, they say, you're a bad person (and probably an SJW) for even liking it.

And it almost invariably comes from OSR fans; people who like the exact same things the asshole who nearly drove me from the hobby feel the need to call out what I like as bad. So forgive me for coming off as defensive when OSR/TSR fans keep attacking what I love about the hobby. It's a learned reflex I assure you.

Quotewhile using very loaded terms that portrayed everything as a binary choice between your (right) way and the (wrong and monolithic) way that other people play games.

No. That's how you chose to read it; in the least charitable light because something triggered you and you were looking to be offended.

Go re-read my post history. It stands visible to one and all as evidence of my positions. You'll see I've never endorsed OneTrueWayist BS.

Seriously, if I were a partisan for one single way of playing, why would I devote so much effort in my own system to including optional rules and settings to make it easy for people to play in ways that don't fit my preferences? I even have dials and rules to let my system play as close to OSR-style play as it can without breaking even though I hate OSR-style play. Clearly the mark of a One True Wayist there.

If I am partisan for anything in gaming it being AGAINST OneTrueWayism. So you'll forgive me again if when I read your own posts accusing me of being some OneTrueWayist fanatic (the opposite of my beliefs) that I would take those as spiteful mischaracterizations and attacks on my character and endeavor to explain my positions (which you read as further attacks rather than as defenses).

Pax! Pax! Wina dajcie i niech żywie miłość między chrześcijany!

Quote from: Slipshot762 on February 18, 2021, 06:53:42 PM
So far my thinking is going in this direction.

Have a glance at the sidekick system for 5e D&D. It breaks the classes down into 3 groups - Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster.
Warrior maps to the fighter, the Spellcaster is a mix of Cleric and mostly Wizard/Sorcerer, and the Expert is a mix of Rogue and Bard.

It is not great, but it gets the job done and there was originally even suggestions for using them as simple player classes for those who wanted something more straightforward.

As others have mentioned, I see the strengths of class based design as

1)   Learning a game and getting to play quickly
2)   Easy character creation
3)   Reduce decision overload
4)   Easy character advancement
5)   Niche protection
6)   Support familiar archetypes ("I want to play Han Solo...")

and the weaknesses as

1)   Difficulty or inability to create certain imagined characters with existing classes/mechanisms
2)   Limiting imagination in character design/development
3)   The work of creating new classes when necessary
4)   Illogical and unintuitive mechanics ( "I can't hold a sword because I'm a magic-user?!" )
5)   Limiting character development choices

My preference then is to start with skill based mechanics and try to recreate the strengths of class systems.

Providing optional, initial templates helps with most of these, and I consider these pretty much essential for a skill based system.

For the rest of it, my preference is to include mechanics that reward taking and improving skills that are related.

In a previous, abandoned game design project, I did this by adding bonuses and reduced learning costs for skills depending on the ones you already had.  There were "tight groups" for closely related skills and "loose groups" for those somewhat less so.  As an example, If you had +10 skill in a long sword, that gave you a bonus +2 skill in any other sword and a bonus +1 skill in any weapon.  Similar mechanics affected the XP costs of learning related skills.  Like much of the rest of that system it's mathematically elegant and produced exactly the results I wanted, but was more work than I cared to do at the gaming table.

In my current project, there are 6 talents, akin to D&D's ability scores, which are attack, defense, athletics, magic, guile, and perception.  A combination of 1 or two of these gives a rough match for most archetypes I can think of.  Each skill depends on exactly one of the talents, so it usually makes sense to develop skills that are related to the ones you already have, which provides niche protection.  For example, if you're a sword striker then getting another +1 in sword skill provide a really important increase in your primary function.  Putting that skill point into a magical art instead will might mean going from useless to slightly less useless in that skill.  That's something you might want to do occasionally for flexibility or a specific problem, but usually an inferior approach.  It provides much the same benefits mechanically as the other system and is much simpler to implement.