character creation

I have custom character creation rules for CoC 7th Ed. I welcome feedback. <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sTiS4ema6Z4i5HFPFvuFSc41e9tajWky" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sTiS4ema6Z4i5HFPFvuFSc41e9tajWky</a> <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XL_A_pZQkvNIb42DyXa8crJcPMk_2qB1" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XL_A_pZQkvNIb42DyXa8crJcPMk_2qB1</a>

I think some of those are reasonable but Edu affecting move speed . I'm not too sure about that , for the most part though I like the creativity and ideas behind your alterations. My only concern is that if you end up opening the door to new players they are going to be completely overwhelmed. you may want to increase the skill requirement of your players if you want to implement those rules. That said I think it was an interesting and creative interpretation of the game and a great way to add variety to the game .&nbsp;

Age affects both EDU and Move. But that is not the same thing as EDU affecting Move.

Why use "character" and "investigator" interchangeably in a 3-page document, when you can just use one exclusively? Also, +10 Characteristic Points for the flaw of being a woman or minority lmao&nbsp;👍

I'd suggest removing the caps on skill levels. Someone might create a character with a plausible reason to exceed what you have listed for their age. If they do exceed those caps, they are lowering some other skill(s) to compensate. I would say that balances it will enough. If someone tries to start with all skills they raise above default at master level, they will be crappy in alot of important investigator skills, and will probably be screwed. Why make a rule for something that doesn't always apply, and solves itself when the system is abused?

Greg, the value of points spent increases as the level of skill they are spent on increases. In reality, it should be cheaper to raise skills to lower levels like 20 or 30, and more expensive to raise them beyond 70 or 80. Many systems have some sort of progressive cost. Systems with bell curves from multiple dice (like GURPS) have this built in. So rather than attempting THAT, I limited higher end skill levels. Once you have a skill, the odds of increasing it through game play decrease as that skill increases (you have to roll above a skill that you used in game play to see if it increases). So the CoC system acknowledges this concept - that skills at higher levels are more valuable - even more so than if the same points were spent on many skills at a lower level. Yes, having a 90 in Firearms, Library, Brawling, Spot Hidden, etc... does affect and unbalance game play. Investigators are intended to be normal people dealing with very un-normal events and situations. Anyway, that was my thinking. I appreciate the feedback.

I made a spreadsheet that saves some time in points tabulation. <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ozusTvM3LYZJNUvU2s6YeZiEJBfG2KXC" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ozusTvM3LYZJNUvU2s6YeZiEJBfG2KXC</a> As listed, it is built on the adjusted rules I outlined above. But it can easily be edited to match standard rules.

Unless the character is being created to fill a very narrow role, and low improvement over time is acceptable, it is actually generally better to start with as many important skills (that is, those one wants to be eventually good at) at 50% as possible. This gives significantly better returns for improvement over time. So, I disagree that "value of points spent increases as the level of skill they are spent on increases". Taking into account improvement over say, 20 or 40 sessions, one see that the opposite can quite possibly be true. A character with a 90% in Firearms(HG), Firearms(R/S) and Fighting(Brawl) will be very effective in combat - but to get those 90%s they have to sacrifice alot of their long term improvement in other skills. In CoC not all skills are equally important - but there are a core set of very important skills, and these are too numerous for any starting PC to dominate them all. My strategy is to get 50% in the critical ones, 30-40% in important ones that I will likely get to attempt often. In 20 sessions, assuming I get to attempt each exactly once per session, 50% --&gt; 75%&nbsp; - which is pretty spectacular, in my opinion. Of course this is only a rough estimate, as it depends on how often on gets to attempt a skill per session. But, there is no denying that 50% in a skill maximizes the rate of skill point increase for a skill that is attempted once per session (that is, x(1-x) peaks at 0.5). As a keeper, I'd let people do whatever they want with their skill points - those who make the mistake of over-concentration will pay the price eventually - its a trap. The people who over-concentrate their skill points at creation are trading long-term glory for short term glory, with the former going on potentially forever. If one gets to attempt a skill more times per session (m), this effect increases: (1 - (1-x)^m)*(1-x) peaks at approximately 42% for m=2, 37% for m=3, etc. There are atleast two mitigating issues - some high rate of success - higher than optimal for total max skill points as a function of time - might be required to keep the PC alive, and some skills are rarely used but success is critical when they are (example: Throw). However, coordination during character creation by the PCs can usually have these distributed among the entire party, so taking a higher than optimal starting value in one or two would not be a problem for the overall strategy. As for investigators being "normal people", that is entirely up to the player of that PC - as long as they are forced to abide by the total skill points available. I'm a strong proponent of player agency - I say let them do what they want without unnecessary extra restrictions.&nbsp;

I think starting at a 40% instead of 50% would better maximize, if that's the goal. You usually get multiple tries to use a skill, but only one roll to improve it. So even a 30% in a skill used a lot will likely see one success in a game session. But to get a skill from 50% to 90%, it takes a lot of sessions. You will be insane before that happens. Yes, you have fewer skills to improve or at least, fewer that can be effectively improved. But you can have a skill or two that almost never fails. This is fairly huge. As a side note, instead of improvement checks, I allow a skill that was 'checked' to automatically improve by an amount inverse to it's present level. A skill at 60%-69% automatically improves by 5%. One at 70-79% improves by 4%. One at 30% to 31% improves by 8%. It improves by 11-integer(skill/10).

"But to get a skill from 50% to 90%, it takes a lot of sessions." At exactly one attempt per session, it takes about 20 to get 50% --&gt; 75%, another 20 to get 75% --&gt; 90%, on average. I have never had a CoC character go insane, because I carefully manage their sanity, and most keepers give sanity for campaign successes. Generally, I make POW my highest (or sometimes second highest) stat to start with as high as possible sanity, and avoid gaining Cthulhu Mythos skill. If even one skill breaks the 90% barrier, the PC gets 2d6 sanity as well. Generally, I max my sanity out at 99-Mythos, with Mythos &lt; 10%, and it just stays there. So, no, generally I do not have a problem with my PCs going insane.&nbsp; "But you can have a skill or two that almost never fails. This is fairly huge." One PC is certainly not going to dominate a campaign with a couple of 99% skills and crap in everything else - unless the campaign is alot of the same thing - in which case the problem lies elsewhere.&nbsp; My strategy works ever better in games where the optional luck rules are used - because one can spend luck in critical situations in order to stay alive, and also because 99% luck and a bunch of skills at 75% is still extremely strong - one can still get near-guaranteed success on critical skill checks. &nbsp; Anyway, to summarize - I think you are way-overestimating the value of over-concentrating skill points at character creation.