Does this make ANY sense?

[Soleil Noir]

(Sorry to be making the same post in two different sections; but this is a more general "HERO game mechanics" question but I accidentally posted it to the
"Champions" section...)

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills, INCLUDING the Background Skills, and it's not considered "unbalancing"! I asked Mr. Long where the imbalance was, and wasn't this simply promoting stat inflation, and got the standard "I don't answer game design/philosophy" response.

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?

And yes, I know that I'm completely at liberty to disregard Mr. Long and play the game as I see fit, thanks very much. I'm just wondering: since Steve won't, does anyone else here see his point of view and can make the case as to how 5 point Levels boosting background skills is unbalancing, but 5 points spent on INT to do the same thing isn't?

[Bloodstone]

Well, in Heroic level games most character will run up against NCM, making it impossible or prohibitivly expensive to go above a certain amount of INT.

Other then that... I'd have to think on it...

[ghost-angel]

INT Based Background Skills are not Intellect Skills. therefore cannot benefit from Intellect Skill Levels.

Beyond that, I see no balance issues personally.

[Kelcyron]

There are 2 reasons to buy 5-point skill levels with int (or pre) skills instead of just buying up the stat:

1) NCM (either due to heroic setting or taking the disad)
2) "Concept". If your character concept is someone who's not too bright (or charismatic) then buying up the stat isn't the right thing to do.

Other than that, there's no reason not to buy up the stat instead of buying levels.

Kelcyron

[Checkmate]

Soleil Noir,
Yes there have been MANY official answers that left me with that blank stare wondering "What?!?". It's best to just let it go, and do what you want. No amount of logic, proof or witchcraft will EVER get an answer changed.

[Soleil Noir]

THANK you, Checkmate.....I suppose maybe I was just looking for validation of some sort -- that I'm not the only one who thinks that a lot of the "official" rulings are counter-intuitive and just don't pass the "smell test"; and that the lack of rationale offered for those rulings make them seem unnecessarily arbitrary or simply Bad Calls. I suppose if Mr. Long DID start offering the "why" to his rulings, explaining himself online could quickly turn into a full-time job....but when I post a question to the forums, I'm doing it with the hope of getting some insight I hadn't thought of before, or hearing from someone wiser or with a better understanding of the rules than myself; and often as not, I'm just not seeing it....

[bigdamnhero]

As unsatisfying as "Because I said so" is for an answer, personally I think Steve is wise to not get drawn into defending his game design philosophy. I know you're asking for explanation, not defense, but the former has a tendancy to quickly morph into the latter, especially online. It's fine for the rest of us to debate it to our hearts' content, but I understand Steve wanting to stay out of that particular dogfight.

As far as the actual ruling, I actually think it makes sense. Background Skills are not the same as Intellect Skills, even tho they're (normally) based on INT. OTOH, if a GM decided that he wanted to allow it in his campaign, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

I suppose I can see where the munchkins (I'm not accusing you of being one) might think it's more cost effective to just buy up their INT. But you could say the same thing about 8-point "All Combat" CSLs -- it's usually cheaper and more effective to just buy up your DEX. But that doesn't always fit the character concept.

[OddHat]

To get the +5 INT to work, you'd need to buy all your background skills at the 3 point level, or the 2 point level with and apprpriate Skill Enhancer (Scientist, Traveller, etc).

If you let the 5 point levels add to those skills, you are saving points that would otherwise need to be spent on those skill enhancers.

In a campaign with NCM in place, those 5 point skill levels are more of a bargain.
__________________

I don't always agree with Steve's rulings either (desolidification and falling, Hand Attacks, Damage Shield), but if I were him I would refuse to debate. He wouldn't have time to do anything else.

[Rapier]

As far as the actual ruling, I actually think it makes sense. Background Skills are not the same as Intellect Skills, even tho they're (normally) based on INT. OTOH, if a GM decided that he wanted to allow it in his campaign, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

I suppose I can see where the munchkins (I'm not accusing you of being one) might think it's more cost effective to just buy up their INT. But you could say the same thing about 8-point "All Combat" CSLs -- it's usually cheaper and more effective to just buy up your DEX. But that doesn't always fit the character concept.

For me, it's all about concept. A high INT gives you better PER as well as a natural tendency to remember and have access to more information. A low INT and a bunch of 5 Pointers make you pretty dim and not very observant, but knowledgable in you areas of expertise. Should these skill rolls just be a little higher? Yes. That would be my first suggestion.

Concept could even go further. For instance, you have a character who has an integral cranial computer. But it takes him a few seconds to access hard to get information. The bonus has limitations on it, that requires a 5 pt level.

I wouldn't let it in without evaluating the entire character, but I don't have a problem with it. If it's in concept, I'd let it in.

[proditor]

I had the initial knee jerk reaction of "That makes no sense. INT is INT." But then I thought about it a sec. I have a player or two with 5 pt. PRE skill levels, another with a 5 pt DEX level, and not one single person with a 5 pt INT level. They have 5 pt science levels, they have 5 pt engineering levels, but not a one has a 5 pt. INT level. I think at some level I had already realized that Steve is (IMHO) dead on about a 5 pt. INT level being WAY too unbalancing in relation to the other skill modifiers. At least in most games I've seen, the thinkers of the group have some 40+ pts invested in science or knowledge skills at the base (3 pt) level. It's nigh impossible to do the same thing with DEX or PRE skills because they don't have the huge potential number of the Knowledge based skills. There just aren't as many skills in PRE or DEX (I'd put forth that once you add in the VAST majority of KS related skills, there are more INT based skills than all others combined, and to a degree that it theoretically only limited by your imagination).

So I get it now, and I understand the ruling. It actually seems fair to me now.

YMMV of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

I had the initial knee jerk reaction of "That makes no sense. INT is INT." But then I thought about it a sec. I have a player or two with 5 pt. PRE skill levels, another with a 5 pt DEX level, and not one single person with a 5 pt INT level. They have 5 pt science levels, they have 5 pt engineering levels, but not a one has a 5 pt. INT level. I think at some level I had already realized that Steve is (IMHO) dead on about a 5 pt. INT level being WAY too unbalancing in relation to the other skill modifiers.

But this leaves the question of whether 5 points for +5 INT is also unbalancing. Leaving aside the issue of NCM for the moment, does it make sense that 5 points of INT costs 5 points, and enhances all INT-based rolls, but a 5 point skill level should provide less of an enhancement, plus be usable for only one skill at a time (if I have a complimentary skill, this could matter a great deal)? It costs the same, but does less.

Similarly, if I can buy +5 PRE for 5 points, get a +1 to all PRE based skills, even complimenary ones used at the same time, get +1d6 PRE attacks and get 5 points PRE defenses, does it make sense that +1 to all PRE skills, with none of these added benefits, costs the same 5 points?

The prima facie answer, to me, becomes "The levels do less than stats. Make them 3 point levels." However, this makes such skill levels far too effective in a game that does have NCM. The discrepancy won't go away, as what is balanced under one approach will be unbalanced under the other.

Thinking on it, maybe that's OK. It seems to fit the source material. In Pulp, Sci Fi or Fantasy, characters may be unusually intelligent, but not superhumanly so. They have a decent INT, likely within NCM parameters or maybe a bit higher (say a 23 max), and derive further skill from levels.

In the comics, however, we have guys like Reed Richards and Tony Stark who seem to master a new field of science overnight, and are brilliant in all fields. Superhuman INT - and they don't have NCM to contend with.

[bigdamnhero]

To get the +5 INT to work, you'd need to buy all your background skills at the 3 point level, or the 2 point level with and apprpriate Skill Enhancer (Scientist, Traveller, etc).
I assume the OP meant that the Skill Level would only apply to background skills bought as Based On INT. Otherwise you're right, it makes less than no sense.


But this leaves the question of whether 5 points for +5 INT is also unbalancing.
I've always thought INT was underpriced, personally. But from a purely gamist standpoint, it's not as if most Hero characters I see have maxed out INT scores. Let's face it, for most action genres, most (certainly not all) players are more worried about getting their physical stats as high as they can. So if players who actually bother to put points into INT get a little added bonus from it, I figure that's not entirely a bad thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've always thought INT was underpriced, personally. But from a purely gamist standpoint, it's not as if most Hero characters I see have maxed out INT scores. Let's face it, for most action genres, most (certainly not all) players are more worried about getting their physical stats as high as they can. So if players who actually bother to put points into INT get a little added bonus from it, I figure that's not entirely a bad thing.

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5, why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?

[Robyn]

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5, why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?

Because it didn't fit the character concept? :confused:

[bigdamnhero]

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5, why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?
I think you misunderstood me. The OP was worried this would "promote stat inflation" by encouraging people to buy up their INT instead of buying Intellect Skill Levels. My point was simply that I haven't seen that as a problem to date; on the contrary, INT is perhaps the least-inflated stat in the game. So even if INT is a little underpriced, so what?

[Lucius]

Soleil Noir,
Yes there have been MANY official answers that left me with that blank stare wondering "What?!?". It's best to just let it go, and do what you want. No amount of logic, proof or witchcraft will EVER get an answer changed.

Or explained.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary regrets the lack of manipulatory appendages. Say, can you lend a hand?

[OzMike]

Sorry, about to flog a dead horse but....

This discussion about INT vs Skills levels sounds suspisciously like the discussions surrounding DEX vs CSL that occur from time to time.

Like DEX, the stat INT is cheaper to buy than all the things it represents. If you want to see the math, I think Gary started a thread on it not that long ago (last 3 months or so).

The short of it is that it will always be cheaper to buy stats than skill levels, and that using skill levels seems to fit more within certain genres, levels of play, concepts and character builds.

So really, yes, it does come down to how the GM wants to run it.

There's no right and wrong ways - only pie.

[Bloodstone]

I think you misunderstood me. The OP was worried this would "promote stat inflation" by encouraging people to buy up their INT instead of buying Intellect Skill Levels. My point was simply that I haven't seen that as a problem to date; on the contrary, INT is perhaps the least-inflated stat in the game. So even if INT is a little underpriced, so what?

I think physical stats will always see more inflation then mental ones.

In my experience I've seen very few characters with an INT over 18. Every once in a while I'll see somone go up to a 23 or a 28. I think mid 30's is where most GM's I have worked with seem to cap it off, and that's the kind of INT reserved for Reed Richards style uber science geeks and Supreme Sorcerers.

But, I think in large part that comes down to the GM's style. How smart was Einstein or Da Vinci in his games? How much smarter then them is he gonna let you be?

I don't think I've ever known a GM that would allow someone play a character with a 60 INT, even at superheroic levels. By contrast, I know very few that would even blink at 60 or more points of STR and arguably STR is signifigantly more useful (in combat at least). A 30 DEX costs more points then a 60 INT and again, more GM's will allow the former then the latter IMX.

I've had GM's tell me flat out "I don't think you can roleplay somone that smart" and I've also hear GM's say "I don't think I could write stories could realistically challenge somone that smart." However, no one ever has problems imagining a rock that a guy with X amount of STR can't lift ;)

So yeah, even when NCM isn't a factor I think you will end up seeing a lot of super smart characters with lots of points sunk into skill levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Because it didn't fit the character concept? :confused:

The simple fact is that character concepts that are substantially overpriced won't see much play. Have you EVER seen a player decide he would play a con man who has a low PRE, or a Superscientist who has low INT, but years of training? Because the skill levels are less effective purchases than the straight statistics, concepts that involve skill levels instead are rarely seen.

Similarly, and getting back to someone's comment about CSL's and DEX, how often have you seen a character with a low DEX and lots of CSL's, rather than buying DEX up? I've seen it where the CLS's were 2 or, at most, 3 point levels, but not levels with all combat to replace DEX. For games in NCM, this would mean a character with no more than a 12 or so DEX who buys a bunch of CSL's rather than buying up his normal cost DEX.

[OddHat]

The simple fact is that character concepts that are substantially overpriced won't see much play. Have you EVER seen a player decide he would play a con man who has a low PRE, or a Superscientist who has low INT, but years of training? Because the skill levels are less effective purchases than the straight statistics, concepts that involve skill levels instead are rarely seen.

Similarly, and getting back to someone's comment about CSL's and DEX, how often have you seen a character with a low DEX and lots of CSL's, rather than buying DEX up? I've seen it where the CLS's were 2 or, at most, 3 point levels, but not levels with all combat to replace DEX. For games in NCM, this would mean a character with no more than a 12 or so DEX who buys a bunch of CSL's rather than buying up his normal cost DEX.

I agree with your point, but to expand slightly:

I have seen the Low INT high Skill Level scientist in play, as well as the Low DEX high skill level Martial Artist, both done for character concept. However, in both cases, they made use of 3 point levels, Overall Levels or Limited Levels (+X DCV from a cape, +X to Science Skills from a pocket computer, Levels that cost END, etc). Once the price disincentive was taken away, the concepts became much more attractive.

5 and 8 point levels are not a good buy in campaigns with no NCM, unless you limit them. On the flip side, while cost has an impact, concerns for cost alone don't drive character creation; "We're making characters, not filling out tax returns".

[Vondy]

(Sorry to be making the same post in two different sections; but this is a more general "HERO game mechanics" question but I accidentally posted it to the
"Champions" section...)

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills, INCLUDING the Background Skills, and it's not considered "unbalancing"! I asked Mr. Long where the imbalance was, and wasn't this simply promoting stat inflation, and got the standard "I don't answer game design/philosophy" response.

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?

And yes, I know that I'm completely at liberty to disregard Mr. Long and play the game as I see fit, thanks very much. I'm just wondering: since Steve won't, does anyone else here see his point of view and can make the case as to how 5 point Levels boosting background skills is unbalancing, but 5 points spent on INT to do the same thing isn't?

Background skills can be purchased two ways:

1) As a General skill with a cost of 2/1 (enhancers make this 1/1)
2) As a CHAR based skill with a cost of 3/2 (enhancers make this 2/1)

If the background skill is purchased as a general skill then, counter-intuitive or not, skill levels purchased for INT based skills would not logically apply. They are, in fact, not INT based skills. If they are purchased as INT based skills, then skill levels for INT based skills would logically apply. And INT is the most applicable CHAR for Area, Knowledge, Science, and many Professional Skills (though not all in the last case).

With that said, however, the default setting for background skills is that they are GENERAL skills. Within that context, and considering the likelyhood that the question did not stipulate the skills were CHAR based, Steve's essential ruling - that the INT based skill levels would not apply to Background skills - makes perfect sense.

Whether or not it would be unbalancing is another issue, and a far more subjective one. Personally, insofar as they were purchased as CHAR based skills - with or without an enhacer - I would allow INT levels to apply and wouldn't worry over it. Nor, insofar as they purchase them as CHAR based skills and pay the 3/2 base cost (or pay for the Enhancer to drop the base cost for CHAR based skills to 2/1), do I consider it unbalancing.

In my games that has always been the rule. I've never run into a balance issue.

[Lord Mhoram]

Background skills can be purchased two ways:

1) As a General skill with a cost of 2/1 (enhancers make this 1/1)
2) As a CHAR based skill with a cost of 3/2 (enhancers make this 2/1)
<snippage>
In my games that has always been the rule. I've never run into a balance issue.

That's not a bad houserule - making background skills 3/2 when they hit the characteristic roll rather than 3/1 like in the rules, with the enhancer bringing it back down. Skill enhancers would be much more common there, but that isn't much of a problem.

[incrdbil]

I never se a scientist/gadgeteer with an INT less than 23. I never see one with the INT skill levels. As for character concept..all the player has to say is 'well, my character is pretty darn smart AND he...".

So, in effect, if you hold to Steves ruling, just expect never to see 5 point INT skil levels bought--just minimum INT scores of 18 to 23.

Admittedly, I rarely run a character under 18 intelligence. I like to make perception rolls, and there is always some INT based skill or two worth taking. Paying extra points to be stupid, less perceptive, and only equally skilled in a few areas in comparison to the character with a simply innate higher INT seems to be a poor reward for 'playing to concept'.

[Vondy]

I never se a scientist/gadgeteer with an INT less than 23. I never see one with the INT skill levels. As for character concept..all the player has to say is 'well, my character is pretty darn smart AND he...".

So, in effect, if you hold to Steves ruling, just expect never to see 5 point INT skil levels bought--just minimum INT scores of 18 to 23.

Admittedly, I rarely run a character under 18 intelligence. I like to make perception rolls, and there is always some INT based skill or two worth taking. Paying extra points to be stupid, less perceptive, and only equally skilled in a few areas in comparison to the character with a simply innate higher INT seems to be a poor reward for 'playing to concept'.

In NCM games - especially where the NCM is a hard cap - levels with CHAR based skills make more sense. And in games that are background skill heavy, even more so.

[Checkmate]

EDIT: Forgot to read page two.

[OddHat]

Hmm so everyone accepts this for INT but not DEX interesting.

You'll find very few cases where Everyone accepts something about HERO past "it currently uses six sided dice".

Heck, there are some who play it diceless.

Characteristics in particular draw a lot of fire; STR, DEX, CON, INT, even to a lesser extent EGO and PRE give you bennies that would be more expensive to purchase in other fairly direct ways. For some HERO players that can be a sore spot. Most shrug, say it works well enough, and move on.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing figured characteristics dropped and I'd like to see skill levels re-priced, but I'm not worrying about it.

[bigdamnhero]

Another possible way to address this: some GMs are more stingy about allowing characteristics to increase with XP. While I don't ban characteristic growth outright (I've known some GMs that do) I do limit how fast and how high you can increase characteristics, particularly in NCM games. So you may start with a high INT (or whatever), but after initial character creation the XP go into skill levels.

I also see this happen a lot with 8 point All Combat CSLs. A character starts out with a decent DEX and several 3-5 pt CSLs; later on, they use XP to "upgrade" those CSLs to the 8 pt level. If you've already got a 5 pt CSL, upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.

[Duke Bushido]

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?


If it makes you feel better, and without the intention of offense to anyone who wrote, plays, or enjoys it, I have this and similar issues with the bulk of the changes and additions that comprise 5e.

As others have said,and you yourself have said: ignore it. Play the way you want. You'll enjoy it more playing it 'your way' than you will fretting under a rule you find counter-intuitive.

[PhilFleischmann]

If you've already got a 5 pt CSL, upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.
Uh, it seems to me to be only 1 point cheaper. And you get a lot more for that one extra point.

But back to INT and INT-levels. +1 with any one INT skill is 2 points. +1 with any three INT skills has to cost more, and indeed it does: namely 3 points. +1 with all INT skills should cost more than that. By the rules it costs 5 points. It could have been 4, and you can change it to 4 if that seems fairer to you (and I wouldn't argue), but again it's only a 1 point difference.

As others have mentioned, it's really due to NCM. If you're playing superheroic (no NCM), it's well within genre to have 28+ INT, so go ahead and buy up the INT instead of the levels. If you're playing heroic, a 5-point level will cost less than +5 INT (once you get to 20), so buy the level instead of the INT, where it isn't as in-genre to have 28 INT.

[Sean Waters]

Given that the whole point of Hero, to me, is that you can build anything you like with it, but you should not necessarily build anything that you can with it, I see absolutely no point in ruling that INT skill levels do not apply to certain INT based skills. Stick up a magnifying glass or even a stop sign, by all means, but if balance is genuinely the issue, I have a list of rather more pressing matters....

I mean, what do we use INT for except skills?

STR you don't roll against in a skill way normally, DEX, CON, BODY, PRE, EGO - none of them are exclusively used for CHAR/5, whereas INT, except in games where you run a maximum number of spells based on a fraction of INT is exclusively used for either a skill base or simply flavour.

In a very real sense even buying skill levels if characteristic inflation by the back door, and devil damn the NCM.

Now personally I dislike PCs with massive INT, or even massive numbers of INT skill levels because, to me, a very intelligent character is far harder to make 'realistic' than a very strong one, for example. Similarly I am not keen on the skills 'deduction' and 'tactics', certainly not very impressive ones - I don't want to be constantly reminding players of things that the character should have spotted.

Like I said at the start, just because you can build it does not mean you should. I am very pleased that the tactics skill appears in Hero. It just does not appear in my games very much.

[BoneDaddy]

Now personally I dislike PCs with massive INT, or even massive numbers of INT skill levels because, to me, a very intelligent character is far harder to make 'realistic' than a very strong one, for example. Similarly I am not keen on the skills 'deduction' and 'tactics', certainly not very impressive ones - I don't want to be constantly reminding players of things that the character should have spotted.

Like I said at the start, just because you can build it does not mean you should. I am very pleased that the tactics skill appears in Hero. It just does not appear in my games very much.
I'm about to play a superduper genius, and it presents challenges - I'm not as smart as my character, which is hard. It means that the GM will occasionally have to give me a peak behind the curtain, which is why the deduction, tactics, and retrocognition are there. I can certainly see why it would frustrate a GM and why it can be an obstacle to role playing (How will I ever NOT say "I wish I'd thought of that!" - I always find myself saying that.) But it fits the concept, and I'll just have to play it carefully and the GM will have to balance how damned smart Marshall Hood can really be.

[OddHat]

I'm about to play a superduper genius, and it presents challenges - I'm not as smart as my character, which is hard. It means that the GM will occasionally have to give me a peak behind the curtain, which is why the deduction, tactics, and retrocognition are there. I can certainly see why it would frustrate a GM and why it can be an obstacle to role playing (How will I ever NOT say "I wish I'd thought of that!" - I always find myself saying that.) But it fits the concept, and I'll just have to play it carefully and the GM will have to balance how damned smart Marshall Hood can really be.

Given the geniuses I have known over the years, playing him as a complete idiot should not be entirely out of the question. ;)

[Sean Waters]

Given the geniuses I have known over the years, playing him as a complete idiot should not be entirely out of the question. ;)

There is a great deal of wisdom in this statement :thumbup:

The sort of genius I have problems with is the 'Batman' type: he just knows - he's thought it out in advance, he has a plan and a backup plana nad a backup backup - all prepared and ready.

This, to my mind, is the main reason that those trying to make the 'perfect Batman' Hero character fail - it is not that the system cannot model the abilities of the character, it is just that the player is neither patient enough nor smart enough to play it.

Well, that should have made me some friends.....

[OddHat]

There is a great deal of wisdom in this statement :thumbup:

The sort of genius I have problems with is the 'Batman' type: he just knows - he's thought it out in advance, he has a plan and a backup plana nad a backup backup - all prepared and ready.

This, to my mind, is the main reason that those trying to make the 'perfect Batman' Hero character fail - it is not that the system cannot model the abilities of the character, it is just that the player is neither patient enough nor smart enough to play it.

I built my tongue-in-cheek Batman tribute with Luck, a half phase to change Gadgets VPP, and Overall Levels. "The Night Hunter just happens to have packed his Night Shark Repellent for this mission".

He also has the "Night Logic". A limited number of times per adventure the Player may ask for the answer to any one plot related question and recieve a short reply. He must then, in character, explain the logic that brought him to that conclusion.

;)

[bigdamnhero]

If you've already got a 5 pt CSL, upgrading it to 8 pts is a lot cheaper than going back and pumping 9 points into your DEX.Uh, it seems to me to be only 1 point cheaper. And you get a lot more for that one extra point.
No, I meant you only have to pay 3 points; the 5 points you've already spent are a sunk cost.

[PhilFleischmann]

No, I meant you only have to pay 3 points; the 5 points you've already spent are a sunk cost.
So sell back the 5 point skill level, and you only need 4 more points to buy the +3 DEX, as opposed to the 3 more points to buy the 8-point level, and you don't even need to pay that much if you spent any points on SPD. If you did, you only need a total of 6 points for +3 DEX. IOW, it actually costs *less* than the 8-point skill level.

Has anyone ever even *seen* a character that had SPD<1+DEX/10 ?

[bigdamnhero]

So sell back the 5 point skill level, and you only need 4 more points to buy the +3 DEX, as opposed to the 3 more points to buy the 8-point level, and you don't even need to pay that much if you spent any points on SPD. If you did, you only need a total of 6 points for +3 DEX. IOW, it actually costs *less* than the 8-point skill level.
OK sure, if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.

[Shike019]

OK sure, if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.

Actually, I thought that it was quite common (going from what I've seen on the boards) to "upgrade" a CSL to the next level.

And apparently some GM's require it.

Cheers
:cheers:

Shike

[bigdamnhero]

Actually, I thought that it was quite common (going from what I've seen on the boards) to "upgrade" a CSL to the next level.

And apparently some GM's require it.
Sorry, I seem to be having clarity problems this week. :) I was in fact suggesting upgrading the 5pt CSL to buy an 8pt CSL (net cost of +3); I don't consider that "selling skills back" so much as improving a skill you already have. I acknowledge that's a semantic distinction, but to me it's easy to fit into most character concepts.

Phil (if I read him right) was suggesting selling back the 5pt CSL to buy increased DEX. Apples and oranges. Not saying I would never approve that as a GM, but I would have to take a careful look to make sure it fit the character concept. All YMMV.

[Dust Raven]

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5, why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?


Because it didn't fit the character concept? :confused:
I find it hard to rationalilze spending more points for less functionality just because I have concept X for my character instead of concept Z. If Z can do more than X, then Z should be paying more, not the other way around.

This goes for any Characteristic vs Skill Level really. For me, there have been very few problems. Not many players are interested in buying 5 point levels of any kind. For those that do, and for concepts that really should be having levels instead of raw Characteristics (for whatever reason, and this is rare), I make sure those levels provide enough functionality to warrent the increased cost. For example, sometimes I have allows a 5 point "all INT Skill" to be used to negate a -2 penalty, or allow the levels to negate time penalties on a 1 level per step on the time chart instead of just adding to the skill roll.

[Dust Raven]

I've had GM's tell me flat out "I don't think you can roleplay somone that smart"

As a GM, I have told that to some players. Eventually my statement changed to "I don't think I can run a game that dumb." and I don't play with them anymore. Of course, this really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand... :doi:

[Hugh Neilson]

I find it hard to rationalilze spending more points for less functionality just because I have concept X for my character instead of concept Z. If Z can do more than X, then Z should be paying more, not the other way around.

Exactly. If, in your game, STR costs 5 points instead of one, I'm unlikely to select a Brick as my concept, since your choices (absent some mitigating factor) penalize my concept.

[Dust Raven]

OK sure, if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.
Isn't "upgrading" a CSL the same as selling back one type and buying another? Why would it be different?

[Vondy]

OK sure, if the GM allows you to sell skills back. To me that seems like stretching things tho. Just my $0.02.

It seems like you're engaging in a touch of pedantry. The character is improving their existing skill set, and doing so in a logical fashion.

[Dust Raven]

Exactly. If, in your game, STR costs 5 points instead of one, I'm unlikely to select a Brick as my concept, since your choices (absent some mitigating factor) penalize my concept.
If, however, you get 5 times as much functionality for those 5 points instead (perhaps I change the lifting rate, or Jumping, or the way STR is applied to certain maneuvers), a Brick concept would still be viable.

[Hugh Neilson]

If, however, you get 5 times as much functionality for those 5 points instead (perhaps I change the lifting rate, or Jumping, or the way STR is applied to certain maneuvers), a Brick concept would still be viable.

As I said, absent mitigating circumstances.

If the system penalizes a certain concept, then players selecting that concept ultimately have a less viable character. In a point-based system, requiring a concept pay more points to achieve the same effect penalizes the concept.

[bigdamnhero]

Isn't "upgrading" a CSL the same as selling back one type and buying another? Why would it be different?
I don't have a problem with selling back a 5pt CSL in order to buy an 8pt CSL. That's great; that is developing an existing skill set. No problem there; do it all the time.

What I'm less enthusiastic about is someone selling back a 5pt CSL in order to spend those points on something entirely different, like increase characteristics. Not saying I'd never allow it, just that I'd want to look at it closely to make sure there's really an in-character reason for it, and not just an excuse to shave a few points.

Sorry if I'm restating the same thing over and over; just trying to clarify what I meant to say.

[PhilFleischmann]

What I'm less enthusiastic about is someone selling back a 5pt CSL in order to spend those points on something entirely different, like increase characteristics.
It depends on what you mean by "entirely different". IMO, a 5-point combat skill level is not that different from extra DEX. And a 5-point level with INT skills is not that different from extra INT. It's just an upgrade from specific applicability to general applicability.

And in most cases I *would* allow selling back something to buy something completely different. It's the player's character, not mine. He should be able to do what he wants with it. Concepts do change occasionally, even in the source material.

[TaxiMan]

Haven't thought this out so feel free to shoot it down:

If a character concept can be met multiple ways, how about you write it up however it seems best, and charge a cost of whichever is cheapest?

E.g. the dumb scientist. If buying INT up to 30 is one option, and INT 10 + 4 skill levels + additional cost to make the Background skills work is the other option, write him up as 10 INT and all the stuff you want, but only charge 20 pts.

Same for DEX (but it's a little messier). If you could have 30 DEX but it doesn't fit concept, go ahead and have 21 DEX plus 6 CSL (limited to 3 OCV, 3 DCV), plus other goodies that you could have had if you were 30 DEX. Or drop the goodies if it doesn't meet the concept, whatever.

But don't charge more than 60 pts 'cause you could have just bought DEX.

[Rapier]

If a character concept can be met multiple ways, how about you write it up however it seems best, and charge a cost of whichever is cheapest?

Nope, nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.

[Dust Raven]

Nope, nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.
I agree that cheapest doesn't equal best, but it's a difficult job sometimes determing which game mechanic fills a specific need. Taking your example of freezing someone in their tracks, you just just as easily use TK as you could Entangle. For being good at "smarts" skills, you could just as easily use a higher INT as you could INT Skill Levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Nope, nope, nope. Cheapest does not mean best. Your best bet is to use the power that most resembles the effect you are looking for. If you want to freeze someone in their tracks you are using some form of Entangle. When you start looking for the cheapest method you get into some huge cheese and then we throw little pickles at you.

While I agree there is a line where "cheapest" converts to "cheesiest", I also don't think it's beneficial for the system to have a number of ways to achieve the exact same mechanical effect at very different point costs. Two characters of equal ability ought to have the same character point cost to get there. If they don't, even the most superficial expectation of using points as a balancing factor is eliminated.

Given we're discussing a character who is extremely proficient at skills and tasks which require quick thinking and knowledge retention ("the effects you are looking for"), I fail to see how additional intelligence (+10 INT) is in any way less consistent with the effect than +2 skill levels with all INT skills. Really, how did you train to be better at everything that requires quick thinking and knowledge retention without enhancing your own ability to think quickly and retain knowledge?

[Talon]

5 point INT levels are, at present, a bit silly in games without NCM. If you want the "good at skills but not observant" effect, buy lots of INT and then a "Absent Minded" Physical Limitation that gives him a PER penalty. (That's actually even better for the concept, since you can phrase the Phys. Lim in such a way as to give him good PER rolls for science-y things that no one else would notice.)

[Dust Raven]

While I agree there is a line where "cheapest" converts to "cheesiest", I also don't think it's beneficial for the system to have a number of ways to achieve the exact same mechanical effect at very different point costs. Two characters of equal ability ought to have the same character point cost to get there. If they don't, even the most superficial expectation of using points as a balancing factor is eliminated.
Agreed. I will point out that the cases where you get massively different costs for identical functionality from two or more possible builds are very rare, and often include invalid builds (such as comparing a BOECV EB w/ IPE to Ego Attack)


Given we're discussing a character who is extremely proficient at skills and tasks which require quick thinking and knowledge retention ("the effects you are looking for"), I fail to see how additional intelligence (+10 INT) is in any way less consistent with the effect than +2 skill levels with all INT skills. Really, how did you train to be better at everything that requires quick thinking and knowledge retention without enhancing your own ability to think quickly and retain knowledge?
Agreed.

On comparing INT and Levels, the only fuctional difference is the +10 INT does four things the Levels do not: 1. Increase PER Rolls 2. Make it harder to Drain INT 3. Increases Background & Power Skills based on INT and 4. Boosts all Skills based on INT at the same time.

If INT levels and INT are to cost the same, they should have equal functionality, meaning either INT should do less, or levels should do more, or the levels should cost less. Until one of these things happens, I'll always buy INT over levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Agreed. I will point out that the cases where you get massively different costs for identical functionality from two or more possible builds are very rare, and often include invalid builds (such as comparing a BOECV EB w/ IPE to Ego Attack)

Let's not go there. BoECV iytself does more than AVLD - mental defense and costs less.


On comparing INT and Levels, the only fuctional difference is the +10 INT does four things the Levels do not: 1. Increase PER Rolls 2. Make it harder to Drain INT 3. Increases Background & Power Skills based on INT and 4. Boosts all Skills based on INT at the same time.

If INT levels and INT are to cost the same, they should have equal functionality, meaning either INT should do less, or levels should do more, or the levels should cost less. Until one of these things happens, I'll always buy INT over levels.

This, to me, is the core of the issue. Many of us are fond of noting a Limitation that fails to limit saves no points, and a Disadvantage which is not disadvantageous garners no points. The corollary, however, is rareley mentioned. If the player spends points, the ability purchased should carry benefits commensurate with other uses to which those points could have been put.

Skill levels are in a unique place. They are often inferior to purchasing stats at normal cost. But making them cheaper would make them a huge bargain in an NCM game where the stats would cost double beyond a certain level. Thus, they become more valuable, and more common, in an NCM game. Funny...those tend to be the genres where characters typically rely more on skills than enhanced characteristics and powers. From that perspective, maybe we've ot it right.

[Dust Raven]

Which is why I try to find additional uses for Skill Levels as an alternative to reducing their cost. It's easier to say a Skill Level can be use to offset penalties on a greater than 1:1 ratio, or allow certain tasks to only be performed with the application of a Level (similar to Bouncing with CSLs), than it is to manage reduced costs or try to balance costs vs concepts.