Forums of the Megaverse®

Reading through Clinical Genetics, and puzzled, so looking for unofficial/official input on the skill. It states:

Clinical Genetics (After the Bomb): The character understands the basic principles of genetics and inherited traits, has memorized many of the 30,000 human genes, and has studied the causes of genetic diseases and deformities, as well as mutant genetics. Includes the skills necessary to operate gene scanners, computer genetic analysis devices, and gene therapy machines. The character starts out knowing the genetics of three non-human creatures (usually the character's own, and two others). Base Skill: 35%+5% per level of experience. Characters can learn the genetics of an additional creature at levels 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15.

My concern/confusion is the "The character starts out knowing the genetics of three non-human creatures (usually the character's own, and two others)" portion. Does that mean it's broken down into a specific category, say a human doctor would know Clinical Genetics (Humans), and Clinical Genetics (Owls, Parakeets)

or

Clinical Genetics (Humans), Clinical Genetics (Birds, which would include Birds of Prey, Budgies, Parakeets, Perching & Songbirds), Clinical Genetics (Canines, which would be Coyotes, Wolves, and Foxes)?

In the immortal lyrics of MST3K:

Joel Hodgson and Josh Weinstein wrote:If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax

Keep it as simple, or complex as your GM or gaming group feels they need it.

Keep it to the broad animal mammalia orders such as rodents, bats, carnivores, etc. Better yet, let anyone with Clinical Genetics work on any animal they like; simpler rules are better rules.

The character starts out knowing the genetics of three non-human creatures (usually the character's own, and two others).

Note that the character knows the human genes, plus three others, so in your example of a human geneticist, he would already know the human genome, and gets to pick three more.

In my opinion it would be pretty much species specific (or as near to it as you can get and still find it workable, e.g. I would get right down to 'mice' as a choice, as opposed to 'rodents' or 'mammals', or 'owls' as opposed to 'birds of prey' or 'birds', but wouldn't go right down to 'harvest mouse' or 'barn owl'), as it mentions the human genome specifically, and not just 'apes' or primates' as a group. But that's just an opinion, and not the one shared by the other posters, so not much help, sorry!

Clinical Genetics (Birds, which would include Birds of Prey, Budgies, Parakeets, Perching & Songbirds, ect...), Clinical Genetics (Canines, which would be Coyotes, Wolves, and Foxes, ect...)

I have a bit of a pet peeve when it comes to people grouping animals together like that - people always seem to consider 'birds' (and often reptiles, amphibians and even fish) as being just all the same thing, while dividing the mammals up into smaller groups such as orders or similar. either way is fine, but I think you should be consistent, so if you decide to divide mammals into sections such as canines, rodents, etc., then you should really do the same for birds (for instance, birds of prey, fowl, perching birds etc.). Just venting my OCD!