In games with skill systems, do you prefer many different, specific

I see no reason why the octopus with the greatsword wouldn't win.
>has reach and a shield
>is armored
>can block 7-4s crossbow and 7-3s spear
>more reach than 7-1

Broad skills, all the way. Hyper-granular skill lists are annoying and bloated. Cut it down to the minimum number necessary for your game, make sure every skill is distinct and meaningful in and of itself rather than just there to fill a gap.

>>50913992
Something in between is best.
Just as an arbitrary example off the top of my head:
>Basic stats such as Strength: range from 0 to 9, human average is 3, quadratic XP cost
>General skills such as Fighting: range from 0 to 9, triangular XP cost
>Specific skills such as Swords: range from 0 to 3, linear XP cost
>all three are added to the relevant roll

Rolled 6, 3 = 9 (2d6)

>>50914164
This, roll either 2d6/3d6 roll under.
Like
>Strength+Fighting+Swords = 3 + 2 + 2.

The person asking this question is trying to make a rule set for an elder scrolls pen and paper. He wants to lump all melee weapon skills into one and all armor + blocking skills into one. I argue that its better to have a larger variety of skills in a system were you gain skills by using skills.

I have a homebrew system I'm working on. Basically, there are four core classes - warrior, rogue, witch, cleric - that share a universal list of broad skills, and have their own list of specialized talents. There are also key talents that allow you to cross over and start picking from other classes.

For instance, to make a paladin, you'd start as a warrior or a cleric, and then cross over to the other class' talents at some point and start grabbing them.

Doesn't really answer the question but there ya go.

>>50913992
CoC does it right

>>50914083
7-1 can block with the shield, then move to close range.

File: IMG_2190.jpg (26KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 224x225px

>>50914508
>class-based systems
>in the year if Our Lord Steve Jackson 2016

>>50913992
Specific, but not too specific.

Too broad:
>melee, ranged
Good (leaning to narrow):
>brawl, one-handed, great weapons, throwing, ranged
or for sci-fi:
>brawl, melee, throwing, firearms, beams, gunnery
Too narrow
>GURPS (main-gauche, rapier, saber, and smallsword are all unique skills)

>>50913992
I do skills in profession groupings. So rather than have stealth, lockpicking etc. You'd have burglary instead. It works kind of like a very flexible class system.

>>50913992
This is how octoroks should be in Zelda games.

I would prefer a system that had a fairly large selection of weapon skills, in addition to styles, which would provide bonuses to various skills or abilities.

>>50913992
Broader skills with the option to specialize afterwards is generally better in my experience, though there is a limit, but that limit is largely setting-dependent.

>>50913992
You have a skill (or several) called "attack" or "combat" not related to weapons and their typology. You get penalties to it if you're not using your primary weapon, and they can be massive if the weapon you're using is very different from anything you can use. You start with one primary weapon but you can buy more, and it's cheaper if they're similar.