Skills Issues

[GamePhil]

It's the Standard Effect rule applied to skill rolls. Instead of rolling dice, assume that they all came up 3's, for a total of 9.

I've done that, but I use 11 for standard rolls and 8 for trivial rolls (or just don't require a roll for them, since it's about the same, but I liked having the rule there for people with Familiarities).

[JmOz]

I'd like to see a mechanic for using skills in routine situations, like the Take 10/Take 20 rule from d20. Call it, "Take 3". It's the Standard Effect rule applied to skill rolls. Instead of rolling dice, assume that they all came up 3's, for a total of 9. It takes the default amount of time, and all other situational modifiers apply. If the total is 11+ (after all bonuses and penalties), it's a standard success. If not, it's a standard failure.

I have used for a long time the idea that out of combat skills always suceed, if given enough time

Basicaly the GM decides on how long it will take to do a job, the player rolls his skill, for every 2 points he makes it by the time is reduced one step on the time chart, for every point he misses his skill roll by is an increase on the time chart.

[Shoutybloke]

Has anybody suggested renaming Criminology to the more accurate Criminalistics yet?

[Michael Hopcroft]

Has anybody suggested renaming Criminology to the more accurate Criminalistics yet?

Since this is the first time I've ever seen the word Criminalistics, I doubt it.

[GamePhil]

Since this is the first time I've ever seen the word Criminalistics, I doubt it.

Strictly speaking, "criminology" is the study of criminals (psychology, behavior, and so on), while "criminalistics" is the gathering and analysis of evidence. This distinction is mentioned at least once in the Ultimate Skill and I believe also in Dark Champions, so certainly Steve is aware of the difference and may change it. I personally have no preference, aside from whether or not it would cause a disconnect with the players, but Criminalistics would be more correct.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Strictly speaking, "criminology" is the study of criminals (psychology, behavior, and so on), while "criminalistics" is the gathering and analysis of evidence. This distinction is mentioned at least once in the Ultimate Skill and I believe also in Dark Champions, so certainly Steve is aware of the difference and may change it. I personally have no preference, aside from whether or not it would cause a disconnect with the players, but Criminalistics would be more correct.

It sounds like both are perfectly valid, if possibly separate, skills. Criminology would probably be a KS, though, just like most of the other so-called "soft sciences" like psychology and sociology.

[Blue]

Since this is the first time I've ever seen the word Criminalistics, I doubt it.
Heh. You don't watch enough CSI or Bones.

Don't see where the change would hurt. But then I don't see where not changing it would hurt either.

[BobGreenwade]

Don't see where the change would hurt. But then I don't see where not changing it would hurt either.While I agree that it's probably not a huge deal either way, I'd be in favor of changing it just for the sake of credibility. It's generally better, given the choice, to call something by what it is rather than by what it isn't.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Is there any real difference between a Science Skill and a Knowledge Skill that helps determine when something is one and not the other? It may be obvious that Astronomy is a Science Skill and Astrology is a Knowledge Skill (if it is a skill at all), but what about knowing how to navigate the Milky Way galaxy in a starfaring campaign?

[ajackson]

Is there any real difference between a Science Skill and a Knowledge Skill that helps determine when something is one and not the other?
Science skills give you theory and teach you how to extrapolate; knowledge skills give you lists of facts. While I'd probably let someone roll vs astronomy to identify constellations and the like, stellar navigation will require a knowledge skill (or Navigation).

[Opal]

It may be obvious that Astronomy is a Science Skill and Astrology is a Knowledge Skill (if it is a skill at all), but what about knowing how to navigate the Milky Way galaxy in a starfaring campaign?This is an area where I think the skill system could be improved. It should be obvious that navigating would be Navigation, regardless of just how you might be navigating (map & compass, stars, black hole detector, or whatever...), or where you may be going to or from (Atlantis to Lemuria, New York to Dubai, Sol to Wolf 359....

[Hugh Neilson]

Since I'm hangin' my houserules out for all to see, here's a skill related one.

Treat all skills the same.

I appreciate the difference between a PS and a KS - but we have skills such as climbing or stealth which are essentially PS:'s (something you do, not something you know) but with a slightly different cost structure. I keep the general names and write-ups similar, but simply use a unified cost: 8- for 1 pt, 10- for 2 points, CHA-based for 3.

I like this. I especially like the fact that a character with a 8-10 stat actually gets a benefit for the extra point spent to move from a 2 point skill to a 3 point skill.

[Evil Steve]

CSLs. One thing that bothers me is that a character with a Longsword and Swordfighting Martal Art could take a 2pt CSL-Longsword and gain the benifits on top of his martial arts. It would seem, that to gain the benifit of a CSL for your Longsword and Swordfighting, it should be the 3pt CSL to cover tight groups. This should be addressed and corrected.

On other Topics

Here are my suggestions:
Introduce a new Background Skill, called "Social Environment," which is similar to Knowledge, Science and Professional Skills, in that the player must choose what social environment the character is experienced with. This skill would replace the current skills Bureaucracy, High Society and Streetwise. Additional subcategories could include Geek Culture, Goth Culture, the Entertainment Industry, etc.


Finally what ever you do, change Paramedics, to first aid, trauma care, emergency medicine or something like that. Paramedic is a profession not a skill. I did not spend 1500 hours in class, hospital and field internships to apply bandaids, I learned to perform most of the skills a doctor will use in the first 30 minutes of a major illness or injury, cardiology, pharmacology, IV therapy, defibrillation and cardioversion etc. That skill is an insult to paramedics and you don't want the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians breathing down your door. :D

Seriously, I'd appreciate changing the name. I know it was set in stone for 5th but there is no excuse for 6th considering the other stuff on the table.

A thought...

Many of the skills availble are related but not the same, Skills like System Operation, Survival, and Toadmaster's comments on Paramedics. Perhaps, to bring them in line with the more common Skills, they could be purchaced like regular skills, and then have little 1 or 2 pt adders that expand the character's range.

For example, I purchase Survival for 3pts, and get the free catagory of Arctic/Subarctic. Later, I decide that my character also can survive in Mountains, slap down another 1 point. The overall Skill Survival represents my basic survival skills, including remembering all those things that the unskilled don't know-like how much wood do I need to keep a fire going for X hours. The adders represent your actual understanding of the specific problems of an area (eg:snowblindness, or altitude sickness)

] Clearly delineate Skills from Talents. If it does not require a roll and/or cannot be improved with practice/study, then it should not be a skill. Currently, there are several Skills that do not require a roll, they merely allow the character to do something (e.g. the Autofire Skills). These are not Skills, they are Talents.

Yes, yes, oh God yes.


What would rock would be buying a KS and a PS and somehow turning them into a full Skill. So, with KS: Law and PS: Law, you more or less have full blown Lawyer skill.

Uhhh, that was just a gratuitous example.


I've been (mistakenly) using the definition that a Knowledge Skill is how to do a thing and Professional Skill is how to do the job related to a thing. This came of the thought that with an array of Professional skills, I would overlap many Knowledge skills. In some cases, making Knowledge skills irrelivant, (Science Skills could also be overlapped). A perfect example is PS:Doctor. By making a clear line between What You Know and What You Do would go far to eliminating the overlap and the confusion/frustration of characters being able do work professionally, but not having the applicable skills.

Eg: if someone has the KS-RPGs, they know how the games work, which ones are which genre or style, some of the history and legends of gaming. If they have the PS-Game Store Employee, they know how to talk to a customer, how to order from suppliers and how to run a store. With just one, of those skills, the store won't last long. Combined, the staff could talk with a customer about games, determine what sort of game they want, and what suppliments they should get-irrelivant of system.

Browsing through Ultimate Skill, I hit upon another thought: Could we get rid of Analyze? As it is now, you can do some neat things with it, but it's always seemed to me that most or all of those things really ought to be functions of other skills or KS. Making Analyze a separate skill adds a non-intuitive layer of game mechanic. If I've already spent points bying Martial Arts and a KS: Martial Arts, should it really be necessary for me to spend points on Analyze Style before I can discern what style a person is using and how to counter it? I think the Analyze functions ought to be presented more as a general skill option/mechanic than as a distinct skill unto itself.

Analyze seems to be a last minute add-on. It's ill defined for application and doesn't seem to be flexable. With a bit more exploration of it, Analyze could become usefull. Or it could be dropped.

Either way, it needs to be looked at.


I'd like to see the Defense Maneuvers skills moved over to Talents and redefined to more closely match the other skills, talents and perks in the system. As it stands I keep having to refer to the rulebook to remind myself what "Defense Maneuver III" does or "Defense Maneuver I". As a result, I seldom use these skills. However, if they were repackaged with a better descriptor, I'd be more inclined to have them on my character sheet.


Yup, Talent that puppy along side Autofire Skills



If it was also going to be the skill for romantic seduction I'd lean towards Influence since "I'm going to Manipulate this lady into going out with me." sounds awful. ;) :)

Yup, sounds awful. Accurate, but awful.

[Sean Waters]

Heh. You don't watch enough CSI or Bones.

Don't see where the change would hurt. But then I don't see where not changing it would hurt either.

'Criminalistics' is still a made up word though :D

Mind you, apparently, academic treatease are now referring to a 'flange of gorillas' and that particular collective noun was made up by Rowan Atkinson, playign Gerald the Gorilla ("Wild? I was livid!") in a comedy sketch programme called 'Not the Nine O'Clock News'. Go figure.

Of course I could have made that up too.

[BobGreenwade]

Something that just occurred to me in regards to increasing the granularity of Skill Rolls:

Perhaps we could introduce "half-point" Modifiers.

(Okay, just a minute; I want to wait for the screams to die down.)

I'll illustrate with an example. Suppose the final needed roll is 12.5-. In most ways this functions just like 12-; the "half" can be resolved with a half-die (1-3 = success, 4-6 = failure). A character can buy +1/2 to a Skill (other than Background Skills) for half the cost of a full +1 -- +1 point for most Skills, but higher cost on Skill Levels. (+1/2 Overall Skill Level thus costs 5 points.)

It could, at least in theory, be possible to apply this principle to PER, OCV, DCV, and other success rolls, only calling for the half-die when a half-pip is attached to the required roll. It would allow for finer Modifiers to these things without altering the system so radically as to require massive adaptation for older material (an issue someone else recently pointed out with great wisdom).

[Chris Goodwin]

'Criminalistics' is still a made up word though :D

A Google search on the word brings up 287,000 hits.

When it comes right down to it, all words are made up.

[nexus]

A Google search on the word brings up 287,000 hits.

When it comes right down to it, all words are made up.

Some just have better agents than others :D

[Southern Cross]

Actually,this rule could also be applied to characteristic rolls-a character with an INT of 11 or 12 would have an INT roll of 11.5,and could buy an INT-based skill (such as Computer Programming) up to 12- by spending one point.

[Vondy]

Strictly speaking, "criminology" is the study of criminals (psychology, behavior, and so on), while "criminalistics" is the gathering and analysis of evidence. This distinction is mentioned at least once in the Ultimate Skill and I believe also in Dark Champions, so certainly Steve is aware of the difference and may change it. I personally have no preference, aside from whether or not it would cause a disconnect with the players, but Criminalistics would be more correct.

While this is technically correct, its also a term generally known only by professionals with relevant careers, or geeks who bothered to look it up. As a result, renaming the skill criminalistics is probably a bad idea. However, as someone who has a degree in the Administration of Criminal Justice (and worked in the field) I would point out that in many universities and police departments criminalistics is often referred to simply as "forensics" and is, while not the the most technically correct term, one that the layman will recognize and understand more readily.

That in mind, however, I would drop forensic medicine as a stand alone skill, especially since medicine itself is not a stand alone skill. It should be represented as SS: Forensic Medicine just as a physician would have SS: Medicine (or, PS: Physician/PS: Medical Examiner). This is doubly true as the difference between someone who has studied criminalistics (forensics) and that lucky class of physicians whose patients are all dead is just as great as the difference between a paramedic and a trauma surgeon.

Unless you've been to medical school and gone through training to be a coroner you really should just have "Forensics." (criminalistics).

[Vondy]

'Criminalistics' is still a made up word though :D



No, its not. It is a term in use and understood within the criminal justice community. It is not, however, universal, or even consistently applied. Some departments simply use "forensics," while others use criminalistics. The latter tend to refer to its practitioners as criminalists, but in most cases, those people aren't police officers, but CSI personnel. The department I volunteered for had a Crime Lab, but the personnel all called it forensics (as they were apparently hidebound luddites, though the head of the department pioneered two techniques that were the subject of SCOTUS hearings - and both stood the constitutional test). Of course, he was a kiwi and called erasers rubbers, so his professional aptitude aside, what does he know? Forensics, forsooth! I think criminalistics, while correct, would be confusing for laymen, and should be avoided.

[StGrimblefig]

Something that just occurred to me in regards to increasing the granularity of Skill Rolls:

Perhaps we could introduce "half-point" Modifiers.

(Okay, just a minute; I want to wait for the screams to die down.)

I'll illustrate with an example. Suppose the final needed roll is 12.5-. In most ways this functions just like 12-; the "half" can be resolved with a half-die (1-3 = success, 4-6 = failure). A character can buy +1/2 to a Skill (other than Background Skills) for half the cost of a full +1 -- +1 point for most Skills, but higher cost on Skill Levels. (+1/2 Overall Skill Level thus costs 5 points.)

It could, at least in theory, be possible to apply this principle to PER, OCV, DCV, and other success rolls, only calling for the half-die when a half-pip is attached to the required roll. It would allow for finer Modifiers to these things without altering the system so radically as to require massive adaptation for older material (an issue someone else recently pointed out with great wisdom).

ugh. This just seems unwieldy and unnecessary.

First: the way the rounding rules are written, the rounding occurs at the point of division, not at the end of the calculation. So a 9 + (CHA/5) or less roll will never be 12.5- (unless you are throwing out the rounding, of course).

Second: To get a CHA-based roll to 12.5 or less (ignoring rounding), your Characteristic value must be 17.5 -- not possible as far as I know. Here's a little algebra to show how I arrived at that value.

9+(CHA/5) = 12.5
CHA/5 = 12.5 - 9
CHA/5 = 3.5
CHA = 3.5 * 5
CHA = 17.5

In fact, it is not possible to get a .5 value in a standard CHA-based roll without somehow having half-point Characteristics. The division by 5 leaves you with .2, .4, .6, .8 or .0, and then all roundings are fairly obvious. Division by 3 (for OCV/DCV) leaves you with .333..., .666... and .0, so no help there either.

Third: (ignoring the second point for a moment) What happens to that purchased half point when the player buys up the Characteristic so that the skill roll no longer needs it? Do you force him to buy the other half? Do you let him sell it back?



Sorry, I'm feeling nit-picky today.

[BobGreenwade]

ugh. This just seems unwieldy and unnecessary.

First: the way the rounding rules are written, the rounding occurs at the point of division, not at the end of the calculation. So a 9 + (CHA/5) or less roll will never be 12.5- (unless you are throwing out the rounding, of course).

Second: To get a CHA-based roll to 12.5 or less (ignoring rounding), your Characteristic value must be 17.5 -- not possible as far as I know. Here's a little algebra to show how I arrived at that value.

9+(CHA/5) = 12.5
CHA/5 = 12.5 - 9
CHA/5 = 3.5
CHA = 3.5 * 5
CHA = 17.5

In fact, it is not possible to get a .5 value in a standard CHA-based roll without somehow having half-point Characteristics. The division by 5 leaves you with .2, .4, .6, .8 or .0, and then all roundings are fairly obvious. Division by 3 (for OCV/DCV) leaves you with .333..., .666... and .0, so no help there either.Both of these can be addressed by either rounding to the next lower .0 or .5, or (more likely) simply not using the half-pip on the base roll.Third: (ignoring the second point for a moment) What happens to that purchased half point when the player buys up the Characteristic so that the skill roll no longer needs it? Do you force him to buy the other half? Do you let him sell it back?You just leave it in place.

Note that I'm not endorsing the suggestion on an overall basis; I rather like the Skill roll setup as it is. I'm just suggesting a relatively simple solution to a perceived problem -- at any rate it's a simpler change than going to a 5d6 resolution system, and it's easier to make it optional for those GMs who don't like it.

[CTaylor]

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?

I wouldn't have a problem with this, although you'd have to allow people to drain skills to make up for the loss of ability to reduce skills through stats (same thing with stripping perception from INT).

Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?

This would make some skills cost too much and or make many cost too little, I don't think so.

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?

No, keep it generic and basic as possible and add skills in sourcebooks. You could put a master list in the back of the book or something, but keep the basic rules as basic as possible.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

They're fine as is.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

No, they are fine as is.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

Look over 4th edition ninja hero and ultimate martial arts again, there are some elements of it you dropped that I really liked (flash comes to mind).

[pinecone]

As long as it's not "how hard a skill is to master" as some other generic rpg had (still has?)..

Ah, I see your meaning...and I agree.

[Sean Waters]

One option with skill purchase is that the number of points you spend on a skill would determine the amount of characteristic you can use to influence it. So: 1 point is none at all, 2 points gives you a CHAR/10, 3 points gives you CHAR/5 and, if you like 4 points gives you CHAR/3.

Also shouldn't familiarity start at 9- rather than 8-?

I'm really not keen on fractional/decimal skill values, no matter how cunning the idea. If we are to do it (for instance to make every characteristic point count) then can we record it as a separate skill roll (7-, 9-, 11-, 13-; these work out at close to 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%) as I think that would be less confusing.

[BNakagawa]

One option with skill purchase is that the number of points you spend on a skill would determine the amount of characteristic you can use to influence it. So: 1 point is none at all, 2 points gives you a CHAR/10, 3 points gives you CHAR/5 and, if you like 4 points gives you CHAR/3.


Given the effects of stat inflation on skill rolls, I doubt making it possible to give statistics a larger influence on skill rolls is a good idea.

If you let one PC have an INT of 38 or higher, then under the current rules, they can have 17- INT based skills for 3 points. A mere 18 INT PC would have to invest many more points to compete.

If you allow STAT/3 skill rolls, then the same PC could have a 4 pt skill with a 22- roll, making it even more expensive for the 18 INT PC to compete. 11 points vs 4 points if buying +1 costs 1 point.

Making all skills general (not affected by stats) has the advantage of making people more attentive to skill purchases. The current rule set rewards people who buy high stats and associated skills and not surprisingly, I see a lot of characters built that way.

One of the charms of the HERO system is that it makes it possible to play a broad range of character types. It is important that the rules should be designed that it does not make one type of character (stat heavy in this case) overly dominant over all others.

[Shoutybloke]

Given the effects of stat inflation on skill rolls, I doubt making it possible to give statistics a larger influence on skill rolls is a good idea.

If you let one PC have an INT of 38 or higher, then under the current rules, they can have 17- INT based skills for 3 points. A mere 18 INT PC would have to invest many more points to compete.

+4 levels with int based skills. Same roll if not multitasking. If NCM is in place, half the cost.

[pinecone]

Given the effects of stat inflation on skill rolls, I doubt making it possible to give statistics a larger influence on skill rolls is a good idea.

If you let one PC have an INT of 38 or higher, then under the current rules, they can have 17- INT based skills for 3 points. A mere 18 INT PC would have to invest many more points to compete.

If you allow STAT/3 skill rolls, then the same PC could have a 4 pt skill with a 22- roll, making it even more expensive for the 18 INT PC to compete. 11 points vs 4 points if buying +1 costs 1 point.

Making all skills general (not affected by stats) has the advantage of making people more attentive to skill purchases. The current rule set rewards people who buy high stats and associated skills and not surprisingly, I see a lot of characters built that way.

One of the charms of the HERO system is that it makes it possible to play a broad range of character types. It is important that the rules should be designed that it does not make one type of character (stat heavy in this case) overly dominant over all others.

I'm not sure I understand...38 INT= 28 pts....18 int 8 pts so I spend 18 pts for +6 with INT skills with 2 left over and I'm Int skill (19) or am I misunderstanding...?

[pinecone]

+4 levels with int based skills. Same roll if not multitasking. If NCM is in place, half the cost.

Oh are Int skill levels 5? I was thinking 3 each....

[ajackson]

Oh are Int skill levels 5? I was thinking 3 each....
Levels with all Int-based is 5, like any other broad category. 3 point levels is normally 3 related skills, though allowing it for things like 'all sciences' typically isn't unbalanced.

[BobGreenwade]

Levels with all Int-based is 5, like any other broad category.This is one aspect that I consider "broken" -- +1 Skill Level in a Characteristic-based category costs the same as just buying up 5 points in the same Characteristic, which would yield not only the same +1 but other benefits as well. It's only "broken" for Superheroic games (or any other incidence with NCM, since higher amounts of INT costs double), but even just making that Skill Level cost only 4 points would be an acceptable fix.

[Hugh Neilson]

This is one aspect that I consider "broken" -- +1 Skill Level in a Characteristic-based category costs the same as just buying up 5 points in the same Characteristic, which would yield not only the same +1 but other benefits as well. It's only "broken" for Superheroic games (or any other incidence with NCM, since higher amounts of INT costs double), but even just making that Skill Level cost only 4 points would be an acceptable fix.

I think you hit the problem accurately - most skill levels are too expensive compared to the unmodified stat cost, but would be too cheap at an NCM level where those stat costs are doubled if we were to reduce the cost of skill levels.

[Southern Cross]

Then perhaps extra skill levels could be better simulated as limited stats-say extra INT (Only to make Skill Rolls)(-1/2)?

[ajackson]

Then perhaps extra skill levels could be better simulated as limited stats-say extra INT (Only to make Skill Rolls)(-1/2)?
Well, given how many non-Skill roll uses for Int there are, that sounds like -1/4 (i.e. 4 points per level, which is the proposed cost anyway).

[Southern Cross]

True.But we could apply the same method to costing out Combat Skill Levels as well (using limited DEX).

[Hugh Neilson]

Then perhaps extra skill levels could be better simulated as limited stats-say extra INT (Only to make Skill Rolls)(-1/2)?

All skill levels could be reconstructed in this fashion, as you note. It seems a reasonable approach to evaluating whether the cost is appropriate, but still breaks down in NCM games unless you apply the NCM rules.

To the costing, +5 INT means all my complimentary INT skills all get +1. 1 level means I add to only one roll, so my complementary rolls get no bonus. That's added value for INT. As well, when I'm engrossed in thought (all my levels applied to my Science Skill), I become less perceptive. Not so if I bought up my INT directly.

[Vondy]

Then perhaps extra skill levels could be better simulated as limited stats-say extra INT (Only to make Skill Rolls)(-1/2)?

Yes, they could. But who would want to write them out, or rebuild them time and again?

[tiger]

Not sure if this is the perfect spot for this or not.

A lot of the changes list are names or terminology, following that theme. Perhaps Package Deals should be renamed as well. There is no cost break any longer, hence no "deal"

Perhaps the packages should be list strictly by the skill/powers given, IE. Professional packages, Combat packages etc.etc.etc.

[Susano]

I prefer "Template" myself.

[Vondy]

I prefer "Template" myself.

"Me too."

[CTaylor]

I prefer working up the old package deal idea again where buying this gives you a cost break. It's the same conceptually as a power framework: buy a tight concept and get a cost break.

[pinecone]

I prefer "Template" myself.

I like the term as well....and it is an added feature that makes new players happier and more welcome...

I really hate a fiddly system where it is easy to forget something crutial to your conception, and Hero has moved in that direction more than once. And seems to be headed that way even more in the future. Every time we get more granularity, we add more complexity, and create more chances for error, it's a trade off. And adding safety features is a good way to lessen the risk.

[James Gillen]

I like the term as well....and it is an added feature that makes new players happier and more welcome...

I really hate a fiddly system where it is easy to forget something crutial to your conception, and Hero has moved in that direction more than once. And seems to be headed that way even more in the future. Every time we get more granularity, we add more complexity, and create more chances for error, it's a trade off. And adding safety features is a good way to lessen the risk.

Also "granularity" is a bit overrated, and easy to misinterpret. As I said elsewhere, the best way to get an attribute scale where "every point counts" is to have something like Blue Rose where the stat number IS the modifier- so instead of 10 being normal and variation being 0 to 20, "normal" would be 0 and +1, +2 in a stat would be the modifier for that stat. In other words, the scale would actually compress instead of expand.

JG

[Vondy]

Also "granularity" is a bit overrated, and easy to misinterpret. As I said elsewhere, the best way to get an attribute scale where "every point counts" is to have something like Blue Rose where the stat number IS the modifier- so instead of 10 being normal and variation being 0 to 20, "normal" would be 0 and +1, +2 in a stat would be the modifier for that stat. In other words, the scale would actually compress instead of expand.

JG

And: "All things in moderation." Most concepts, taken to their extremes, become absurd in application. We want a system that takes the "Golden Path," not one that goes to far to either extreme.

[James Gillen]

And: "All things in moderation." Most concepts, taken to their extremes, become absurd in application. We want a system that takes the "Golden Path," not one that goes to far to either extreme.

In my opinion HERO already does take the "Golden Path." We're just trying to see if the new way will be better.

JG

[Vondy]

In my opinion HERO already does take the "Golden Path." We're just trying to see if the new way will be better.

JG

I agree. There is room for tweaking and some streamlining, but IMO we've got the overall granularity we need. Some redefinition for heroic games would be useful, but wholesale changes might unravel a well-tied knot.

[BobGreenwade]

In my opinion HERO already does take the "Golden Path." We're just trying to see if the new way will be better.The Platinum Path? :)I agree. There is room for tweaking and some streamlining, but IMO we've got the overall granularity we need. Some redefinition for heroic games would be useful, but wholesale changes might unravel a well-tied knot.I agree here. As I and others have said elsewhere, if it changes too much it'll cease to be Hero. As much as possible, any changes should fit into what's already there; radical changes should be reserved for those things that are truly "out of whack."

[AnotherSkip]

Not sure if this is the perfect spot for this or not.

A lot of the changes list are names or terminology, following that theme. Perhaps Package Deals should be renamed as well. There is no cost break any longer, hence no "deal"

Perhaps the packages should be list strictly by the skill/powers given, IE. Professional packages, Combat packages etc.etc.etc.


Now then one option I had suggested a while ago was
Build your Own Skill Enhancers
for example of you wanted to encourage "classlike" ideas then
taking a druid ish concept you could have a Druid Skill Enhancer that reduced the cost of the 4-10 Skills most directly related to being a druid as determined by the Gm.
less than four there is no benefit, more than ten could get abusive (at 8 it may even get creaky).
but you could reduce the cost of Police Officers, Paramedics (the real ones), Doctors, Lawyers etc.... as well as provide a suggested list of skills a reasonable version would expect.

[StGrimblefig]

Now then one option I had suggested a while ago was
Build your Own Skill Enhancers
for example of you wanted to encourage "classlike" ideas then
taking a druid ish concept you could have a Druid Skill Enhancer that reduced the cost of the 4-10 Skills most directly related to being a druid as determined by the Gm.
less than four there is no benefit, more than ten could get abusive (at 8 it may even get creaky).
but you could reduce the cost of Police Officers, Paramedics (the real ones), Doctors, Lawyers etc.... as well as provide a suggested list of skills a reasonable version would expect.Of course, there's nothing preventing a GM from doing this in 5th Ed.

This seems more than a bit dangerous, unless you are running a Dark Champions game with few or no "unusual" talents or "superskills," where the PCs will need a lot of skills just to be able to get through the game. This is, to me, too narrow a need to push it into the core rules. Adding in more description to the GM section on how to add something like this to his own game -- sure, why not.

[BobGreenwade]

I've been wondering if Lipreading shouldn't be dropped as a separate Skill, and folded into Languages as a form of Literacy. It does take a bit of work to learn, yes, but that's roughly comparable to learning to read and write. You can only lipread what you can see, and Sight PER Modifiers are comparable to Hearing PER Modifiers to hear what's being said; and of course you can only only lipread in languages you know (at least, in the absence of a Talent to the contrary), just as with hearing them.

Mind you, I'm not making this a call to drop the Skill; I'm just throwing the suggestion out there to see what people think.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?
No. If you want to increase granularity, you could have the Familiarity-level roll be 7 + CHA/10. So a base character would still have an 8- roll, while someone with a 30 in the relevent characteristic would have an 10-, as opposed to the 15- he would have if he bought the full skill.

Or you can put in a Sidebar about an optional rule to reduce the effect of characteristics on Skills (for GM's who want to do that), they could change Skills to 10 + CHA/10 to halve the effect of characteristics, or eliminate it entirely.

Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Things that are different should be treated differently. Consistency is only a good thing when applied to things that are "the same". Background Skills, for example, should not cost the same as the "Regular Skills" Like Stealth, Disguise, Streetwise, etc., because they just aren't as useful.

Regarding "Category" Skills: Yes, some of them could stand to have their categories reduced somewhat, but in general, I think they're fine as-is. Gambling could be eliminated completely and replaced with KS's at most - you either know the rules of the game, or you don't. Most gamling games don't have much real strategy, such as roulette. The skills involved with playing poker (much more complex than roulette or craps), would be better represented by Interactions Skills, like acting, plus a KS or two of poker strategy and play styles of one's opponents (assuming they're known in the world of poker).

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?
Eliminate Gambling. I don't have the 5e Ultimate Mentalist (yet), but I have the 4e one. I assume it includes EGO-Based skills "Cloak," "Facade," and "Veil." (at least that's what they were called in 4e.) You might want to include these in the main rulebook (though they could stand to be renamed). Other than that, I can't think of any to add or eliminate.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?
Introduce "Movement Skill Levels" as a separate category. They've been around since 1st edition, but they've never been explained. There are characters who have 2-point Skill Levels with "Flight" - it's never been spelled out what these levels actually do. Do you get +1 OCV with any attack you make, so long as you're flying? That's quite a lot for 2 points, especially considering that a flying character is likely to be flying almost all the time, while in combat.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?
No. They aren't useful enough. They should be done as other Background Skills are: 2 points for "Normal Competency" with the language (base roll 11-), +1 to the roll for each +1 point spent. Just like 2 points spent on a PS is enough to be normally competent in a particular job. 1 point for familiarity (8-), and 3-points to be INT-based (9+INT/5-). The utility (and therefore the price) of literacy depends on genre. The Linguist Skill Enhancer applies normally.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?
I think they work pretty well as-is. One way to stop abuses is to allow maneuvers that give an advantage vs an opponent who only knows one maneuver.

[BobGreenwade]

I'd go along with adding Cloak, Facade, and Veil in the main rulebook if you can see your way clear to make them Skills that a non-mentalist could use. For example, a non-mentalist might be able to use Cloak or Veil to hide from Mind Scan, or Facade to create "false thoughts" for Telepathy. But if these Skills remain only useful in conjunction with Mental Powers, they should be left to just TUM -- save the space in the main rulebook.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd go along with adding Cloak, Facade, and Veil in the main rulebook if you can see your way clear to make them Skills that a non-mentalist could use. For example, a non-mentalist might be able to use Cloak or Veil to hide from Mind Scan, or Facade to create "false thoughts" for Telepathy. But if these Skills remain only useful in conjunction with Mental Powers, they should be left to just TUM -- save the space in the main rulebook.

These actually go along very well with my thread on Mental Powers (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64260).

They would still likely only remain usable with Mental Powers (Senses) though.

[Susano]

I think they need to rename Skills to properly reflect what they do.

Weapon Familiarity? Bah, call it "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy."

Combat Skill Levels? "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy -- With Panache."

Hand Attack? "How To Make Something Stop Living With Your Fists."

Martial Arts? "That Funky Bruce Lee Sh*t."

Demolitions: "Blow Stuff Up."

Mechanics: "Put Stuff Back Together."

Inventor: "Do Stuff With The Parts Left Over."

[James Gillen]

I think they need to rename Skills to properly reflect what they do.

Hand Attack? "How To Make Something Stop Living With Your Fists."

Martial Arts? "That Funky Bruce Lee Sh*t."

I mentioned that.

JG

[Tonio]

I think they need to rename Skills to properly reflect what they do.

Weapon Familiarity? Bah, call it "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy."

Combat Skill Levels? "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy -- With Panache."

Hand Attack? "How To Make Something Stop Living With Your Fists."

Martial Arts? "That Funky Bruce Lee Sh*t."

Demolitions: "Blow Stuff Up."

Mechanics: "Put Stuff Back Together."

Inventor: "Do Stuff With The Parts Left Over."

Yah, I have a personal beef with "Weapon Familiarity". I play mostly Superhero genre, so they rarely come up, but whenever I see the term, I think "but where's the Skill itself?". Same thing with Transport Familiarity. You can buy Familiarity with any Skill for 1pt, giving you an 8-. You can also buy Weapon or Transport Familiarity, for differing costs, and they've got nothing to do with the 8- Familiarity. :nonp:

Yes, I realize it's semantically correct: WF's give you a basic familiarity with a weapon, meaning you know how to fight with it and suffer no penalties for lack of proficiency. Ditto for TF's. But it's somewhat annoying that there are two types of Familiarities, and they're not related. :p

But yeah, lots of Skills need or could use renaming. Breakfall, for example, covers more than breaking falls. Professional Skills are used for so much more than professions.

[nexus]

Yah, I have a personal beef with "Weapon Familiarity". I play mostly Superhero genre, so they rarely come up, but whenever I see the term, I think "but where's the Skill itself?". Same thing with Transport Familiarity. You can buy Familiarity with any Skill for 1pt, giving you an 8-. You can also buy Weapon or Transport Familiarity, for differing costs, and they've got nothing to do with the 8- Familiarity. :nonp:


Well, technically, a TF can give you an 8- "Combat Driving" skill with that particular vehicle. A WF could do something similar with a weapon type (maintenance, repair, a very small chance of making (likely substandard) one ,etc)

But that's being somewhat pedantic, I see what you mean.

[CTaylor]

I think the concept behind familiarities is pretty intuitive: you don't have the full skill (i.e. poor roll or not the skill levels) but you know a little about it.

[BobGreenwade]

I think the concept behind familiarities is pretty intuitive: you don't have the full skill (i.e. poor roll or not the skill levels) but you know a little about it.It's not the concept of Familiarities that Tonio's having a problem with. It's the terms "Transport Familiarity" and "Weapon Familiarity," which use the word "Familiarity" but don't use the same mechanic.

[Susano]

It's not the concept of Familiarities that Tonio's having a problem with. It's the terms "Transport Familiarity" and "Weapon Familiarity," which use the word "Familiarity" but don't use the same mechanic.

Transport Familiarity -- "Start The Car"

Combat Driving -- "Make Like Mario Andretti"

[StGrimblefig]

Yah, I have a personal beef with "Weapon Familiarity". I play mostly Superhero genre, so they rarely come up, but whenever I see the term, I think "but where's the Skill itself?". Same thing with Transport Familiarity. You can buy Familiarity with any Skill for 1pt, giving you an 8-. You can also buy Weapon or Transport Familiarity, for differing costs, and they've got nothing to do with the 8- Familiarity. :nonp:From another angle, there's the question, "Why can I buy Combat Skill Levels when there is no Combat Skill?"

Yes, I realize it's semantically correct: WF's give you a basic familiarity with a weapon, meaning you know how to fight with it and suffer no penalties for lack of proficiency. Ditto for TF's. But it's somewhat annoying that there are two types of Familiarities, and they're not related. :pThe thing that bothers me the most is that both WF and TF are in the Skill list, but do not act like skills. You buy them to gain access to something, and then have to buy different skills (Combat Driving for WF) or Skill Levels (CSLs for WF) to improve them. These should either be re-imagined as real skills (with proper familiarities), or moved out of the Skills list.

Granted, making a proper Combat Skill would probably mean changing how combat is described (not necessarily the actual mechanics, but at least the description of how the attack roll target number is calculated), but that is not necessarily a bad thing either. It would then also be desirable to put the basic unarmed combat skill in the Everyman skills list.

But yeah, lots of Skills need or could use renaming. Breakfall, for example, covers more than breaking falls. Professional Skills are used for so much more than professions.Combat Driving is not the skill of driving in combat, but rather edge-of-the-envelope driving, whether or not it is done in combat.

However, if someone is using a PS for doing things unrelated to the specified profession, they are using it wrong.

[Tonio]

Transport Familiarity -- "Start The Car"

Combat Driving -- "Make Like Mario Andretti"

Oh I understand how it all works. I'm just irked by the inconsistent naming. Either Combat Driving should be renamed to Transport (ugh), or Transport Familiarity should be renamed to Combat Driving Familiarity (ugh, tho not so much), or TF's and WF's should get a new name w/o the word "Familiarity" in them!

[Tonio]

However, if someone is using a PS for doing things unrelated to the specified profession, they are using it wrong.

PS's are used for stuff other than actual professions, though. Like you can have a PS: Kite-flying, which means you know how to fly a kite properly, not that Kite Flying is a profession which you know how to perform properly. PS's are more like catch-all skills for activities, not necessarily professions.

[Chris Goodwin]

A lot of the way Skills and Skill Levels work dates back to the days of first edition Champions, when the primary way for dealing with the world was through OCV and/or CHA rolls, and Skills were more or less an afterthought. This is one area that, while I don't really think we need to see a major change, we're still using prehistoric mechanics for.

[Netzilla]

I think we should change Combat Driving to just Driving. Then make the appropriate vehicles from the current Transport Familiarity List into subcategories in the same manner as the subcategories for Survival.

Thus, for 1 pt you can get an 8- Driving roll with a specific Vehicle (what would have been a 1 pt Transport Familarity). For 2 pts, you get an 11- roll with a single Vehicle Group (what would have been a 2pt TF). For 3 pts you get a DEX Roll with a single Vehicle Group. Each additional Vehicle is +1 pt. Each Vehicle Group is +2 pts. Each +1 to the roll is 2 pts.

Do the same thing for Combat Piloting and Riding.

I'd like to see something similar done with Weapon Familiarity, but as we don't have a generic Combat skill, it's a bit trickier. I've got half an idea about combining the WF list with Combat Skill Levels. I should think on that some more.

[Susano]

Oh I understand how it all works. I'm just irked by the inconsistent naming. Either Combat Driving should be renamed to Transport (ugh), or Transport Familiarity should be renamed to Combat Driving Familiarity (ugh, tho not so much), or TF's and WF's should get a new name w/o the word "Familiarity" in them!

Would it help if I said I was making a funny?

[Vondy]

I think we should change Combat Driving to just Driving. Then make the appropriate vehicles from the current Transport Familiarity List into subcategories in the same manner as the subcategories for Survival.

Thus, for 1 pt you can get an 8- Driving roll with a specific Vehicle (what would have been a 1 pt Transport Familarity). For 2 pts, you get an 11- roll with a single Vehicle Group (what would have been a 2pt TF). For 3 pts you get a DEX Roll with a single Vehicle Group. Each additional Vehicle is +1 pt. Each Vehicle Group is +2 pts. Each +1 to the roll is 2 pts.

Do the same thing for Combat Piloting and Riding.

I'd like to see something similar done with Weapon Familiarity, but as we don't have a generic Combat skill, it's a bit trickier. I've got half an idea about combining the WF list with Combat Skill Levels. I should think on that some more.

By this token, why not rebuild combat driving and combat pilot to function like animal handler, gambling, survival, systems operations, etc. and do away with transport familiarities all together. They become elements that affect the base cost of the skill.

You could also include combat skills and fold weapon familiarities into them... :hush:

[Susano]

By this token, why not rebuild combat driving and combat pilot to function like animal handler, gambling, survival, systems operations, etc. and do away with transport familiarities all together. They become elements that affect the base cost of the skill.

You could also include combat skills and fold weapon familiarities into them... :hush:

Isn't that how GURPS does it?

[StGrimblefig]

PS's are used for stuff other than actual professions, though. Like you can have a PS: Kite-flying, which means you know how to fly a kite properly, not that Kite Flying is a profession which you know how to perform properly. PS's are more like catch-all skills for activities, not necessarily professions.I disagree. If it is a question of whether the character knows how to fly a kite, that is better handled by an actual kite-flying skill. There is no rule in HERO that says you cannot create a new skill if the campaign needs it. A PS(kite-flying) would be those things that are involved with professional kite-flying beyond the actual flying of the kite (who's who in the professional kite-flying circuit, the politics of the world kite-flying confederation, what the different judges like and dislike in competition, etc. -- this assumes that kite-flying is a sport in your campaign. If it is more of a regular, full-time job, then the insider info would be different -- licensing/legal issues of the profession, practical uses and drawbacks of different kite designs and materials, market conditions, etc.).

I believe that the PS should not be a catch-all. That just dilutes it and makes it less meaningful. The Professional Skill is a Background skill, which means to me that the character was immersed in the relevant environment over a period of time, and learned how things work in that environment by observing it from within. This differentiates it from a Knowledge skill, which is learned by taking time to study it from outside, but doesn't get the "insider's knowledge," or practical experience, that a PS gets.

If I were GM, and a player presented me with a character with a PS that was not mentioned in his background (or a profession that just doesn't exist), I would ask that he describe the job that the character did to gain the skill. If he could not do that, then I would require him to instead purchase an active (CHAR-based) skill and/or a KS.

But that's just me. I could possibly be applying too much of an engineer's view of the world. It just seems to me that if you are using PSs as a catch-all for undefined skills, then why define any other skills at all? By that point of view, all skills are merely applications of SSs (theory), KSs (information) and PSs (practice). And, if we decouple skills from characteristics, I guess that is where it is heading.

[Tonio]

I disagree. If it is a question of whether the character knows how to fly a kite, that is better handled by an actual kite-flying skill. There is no rule in HERO that says you cannot create a new skill if the campaign needs it. A PS(kite-flying) would be those things that are involved with professional kite-flying beyond the actual flying of the kite (who's who in the professional kite-flying circuit, the politics of the world kite-flying confederation, what the different judges like and dislike in competition, etc. -- this assumes that kite-flying is a sport in your campaign. If it is more of a regular, full-time job, then the insider info would be different -- licensing/legal issues of the profession, practical uses and drawbacks of different kite designs and materials, market conditions, etc.).

I believe that the PS should not be a catch-all. That just dilutes it and makes it less meaningful. The Professional Skill is a Background skill, which means to me that the character was immersed in the relevant environment over a period of time, and learned how things work in that environment by observing it from within. This differentiates it from a Knowledge skill, which is learned by taking time to study it from outside, but doesn't get the "insider's knowledge," or practical experience, that a PS gets.

If I were GM, and a player presented me with a character with a PS that was not mentioned in his background (or a profession that just doesn't exist), I would ask that he describe the job that the character did to gain the skill. If he could not do that, then I would require him to instead purchase an active (CHAR-based) skill and/or a KS.

But that's just me. I could possibly be applying too much of an engineer's view of the world. It just seems to me that if you are using PSs as a catch-all for undefined skills, then why define any other skills at all? By that point of view, all skills are merely applications of SSs (theory), KSs (information) and PSs (practice). And, if we decouple skills from characteristics, I guess that is where it is heading.

Whether I agree with you or not (I'm not entirely decided), 5ER disagrees:
"Th is Background Skill gives a character the ability
to perform certain professions, craft s, tasks,
and the like."

"As the name indicates, Professional Skills are
oft en used in a character’s employment. However,
they can also represent hobbies, interests, and other
abilities which don’t have much to do with earning
a living. Play Piano, Flower Arranging, Play Chess,
Sculptor, Singing, Singer, and Poet are all valid PSs."

(From 5ER pg. 68)

They don't specifically mention Kite Flying, but it's pretty clear they're not just talking about professions.

[Netzilla]

By this token, why not rebuild combat driving and combat pilot to function like animal handler, gambling, survival, systems operations, etc. and do away with transport familiarities all together. They become elements that affect the base cost of the skill.

That's basically what I was suggesting. I guess I wasn't clear enough in the idea that the TF skill would go away.

You could also include combat skills and fold weapon familiarities into them... :hush:

As to the combining of Combat Skill Levels and WFs, that's the thing that I said I only had half an idea about how to do.

I'd actually originally made this suggestion back around the beginning of the thread (somewhere around page 3 or 4), but was prompted to bring it back up by Tonio's post.

[StGrimblefig]

Whether I agree with you or not (I'm not entirely decided), 5ER disagrees:

...(From 5ER pg. 68)

They don't specifically mention Kite Flying, but it's pretty clear they're not just talking about professions.

Nor does it say that it is a replacement for a proper Characteristic-based skill. As I see it, all of the examples could be professions, and there are people who do all of those things for a living, but I suppose a character could be exposed to that subculture as an amateur or die-hard fan, without making a living at it.

I do not want to get into the kind of ongoing and repetitive semantic arguments that seem to be plaguing some of these 6ed threads, so I will just say that I see this as a question of equally valid but different interpretations. I can understand how each interpretation can work, although I prefer a clean break between Characteristic-based skills and Professional skills.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Tonio]

Nor does it say that it is a replacement for a proper Characteristic-based skill. As I see it, all of the examples could be professions, and there are people who do all of those things for a living, but I suppose a character could be exposed to that subculture as an amateur or die-hard fan, without making a living at it.

I do not want to get into the kind of ongoing and repetitive semantic arguments that seem to be plaguing some of these 6ed threads, so I will just say that I see this as a question of equally valid but different interpretations. I can understand how each interpretation can work, although I prefer a clean break between Characteristic-based skills and Professional skills.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yeah, I understand your position, and I'm leaning towards agreeing with you. Just saying how the game currently works as per 5ER.

[Vondy]

Isn't that how GURPS does it?

I haven't picked up a copy of GURPS in 17 years...

[Susano]

Deduction's new name: "What Would Batman Do?"

[James Gillen]

Deduction's new name: "What Would Batman Do?"

No, that's Interrogation.

JG

[Susano]

No, that's Interrogation.

JG

And here I was going to name Interrogation "Sign Ze Papers, Old Man."

Hmm.. how about "What Would Sherlock Holmes Do?"

[BobGreenwade]

Deduction's new name: "What Would Batman Do?"

No, that's Interrogation.

JG

And here I was going to name Interrogation "Sign Ze Papers, Old Man."

Hmm.. how about "What Would Sherlock Holmes Do?"Personally I was thinking Deduction would be "Whatchoo Talkin' 'Bout, Willis?" But then maybe that would be Conversation.

So WWSHD works for me. :)

[Vondy]

I think they need to rename Skills to properly reflect what they do.

Weapon Familiarity? Bah, call it "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy."

Combat Skill Levels? "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy -- With Panache."

Hand Attack? "How To Make Something Stop Living With Your Fists."

Martial Arts? "That Funky Bruce Lee Sh*t."

Demolitions: "Blow Stuff Up."

Mechanics: "Put Stuff Back Together."

Inventor: "Do Stuff With The Parts Left Over."

Know
Do
Make
Break

I think that covers the whole skills system.

[Vondy]

Personally I was thinking Deduction would be "Whatchoo Talkin' 'Bout, Willis?" But then maybe that would be Conversation.

So WWSHD works for me. :)

I was thinking interrogation...

[Tonio]

Know
Do
Make
Break

I think that covers the whole skills system.

Know
Perform

Simpler! ;)

[M-3]

I've not posted a lot to these forums because... well, I've only got time for so many forums. :p

Anyways, I've been playing and running HERO system games for more than twenty years now and I want a new edition to be the best it can be. And I'm home with a cold so I've got time to do some posting now.

So I'll share my thoughts with y'all:

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?

I think characteristics-based skills works better in HERO than it does in most other systems. I like that you generally just pay 1 pt for minimal ability or 3 points for pretty good chance and, if you really want to, you can then buy extra levels for 2 pts each. It makes it very easy to buy skills and there's still sufficient differentiation between skill scores even though few characters actually make use of any but the familiarity and basic skill level (IMX).

Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?

As good as the word "Consistent" sounds, I think the answer's still no. They're really as consistent as they need to be considering that there's skills that do many different things (rules-wise).

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?

HERO has, IMO, one of the best skill lists out there. Not too long, not too short, covers all the bases. So, in other words, no. :)

It's one of the things that I still prefer in HERO over GURPS.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

My only objection to CSL's as they stand is that they're too cost-inefficient for what they do compared to just buying up your DEX to get a higher CV. If the way CV is calculated isn't changed, I think the cost of CSL's should be reduced dramatically. But I'd really prefer for CV to be calculated differently. In my own campaigns, CV=1+DEX/5 (which, I also find to be more consistent with how most other CHA-derived values are calculated).

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

When SJG did GURPS4, they changed languages from being IQ-based skills to a system closer to HERO. I'm happy they did. HERO's system is better. I do think there's lessons that can be learned from GURPS 3rd ed, but they're mainly to do with layout. ;)

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

I think they should be made more flexible and allow characters to do more things. Particularly, I'd like for there to be some way of causing an opponent harm with a defensive maneuver. Such an option, absurdly, already exists but only for ranged attacks (with Missile Deflection and Reflection). Defensive throws and ripostes that aren't just moves that must follow a block but are are actually built into a block maneuver shouldn't unbalance the game overly. Plenty of other games offer such possibilities. And HERO has always been about the options.

[GamePhil]

My only objection to CSL's as they stand is that they're too cost-inefficient for what they do compared to just buying up your DEX to get a higher CV. If the way CV is calculated isn't changed, I think the cost of CSL's should be reduced dramatically. But I'd really prefer for CV to be calculated differently. In my own campaigns, CV=1+DEX/5 (which, I also find to be more consistent with how most other CHA-derived values are calculated).


Well, CSL's do more than give CV, they also give the ability to do extra damage and have other optional game effects (eg. bouncing attacks). They may still be overpriced, but I think their other abilities need to be included in thoughts about changing their costs. I'd actually prefer the options to be expanded if the costs are still considered too high, rather than them being reduced in cost (assuming that CV calculation isn't changed).

[BNakagawa]

I think they need to rename Skills to properly reflect what they do.

Weapon Familiarity? Bah, call it "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy."

Combat Skill Levels? "Put The Pointed End In The Other Guy -- With Panache."

Hand Attack? "How To Make Something Stop Living With Your Fists."

Martial Arts? "That Funky Bruce Lee Sh*t."

Demolitions: "Blow Stuff Up."

Mechanics: "Put Stuff Back Together."

Inventor: "Do Stuff With The Parts Left Over."

Yeah, I liked Hol, too.

[Opal]

My only objection to CSL's as they stand is that they're too cost-inefficient for what they do compared to just buying up your DEX to get a higher CV. If the way CV is calculated isn't changed, I think the cost of CSL's should be reduced dramatically. There's usually some campaign or concept limit on DEX. In heroic games DEX doubles in cost after 20, and most GMs have a limit to what they'll accept in terms of DEX they'll accept a character having (be it 26 or 48 or 60). Beyond those limits, you'd have to go with levels.

Levels also /are/ cheaper than buying DEX, if you don't want both OCV & DCV, all the time. Getting +1 CV with DEX costs you 6 points, net of SPD - assuming there are still figured characteristics, and you can still sell them back. Obviously a +1 OCV from a 2pt level is a lot cheaper than +1 OCV from DEX. A +1 OCV or +1 DCV level at 5 points isn't that competative, but if you don't care about the other, it's still less to buy up just the one you want. A 3 pt level with OCV with your multipower or whatever is half the cost of boosting your OCV with DEX. Other levels, like Martial Arts levels, are pretty effective, too. With +6 levels in martial arts, you can have a +3 OCV and DCV, just like getting a +9 DEX, both for 18 points. You can also get a +6 DCV when you're dodging, or a +6 OCV when you're blocking or using an offensive strike to finish off a foe.

Defensive throws and ripostes that aren't just moves that must follow a block but are are actually built into a block maneuver shouldn't unbalance the game overly. Such things were possible in older versions of UMA, you could combine manuevers, have a block/strike or whatever. I experimented with such things, and it really turned my players off. Having your attack fail is bad enough, having them get to attack you adds injury to insult.

Of course, there /are/ still ways to do such things. You can delay a throw, for instance, to spoil an opponent's attack (at least, IIRC, you still can). You can create triggered attacks that go off when you use a certain defensive manuever. 'Must follow block' really isn't that bad, either, unless the opponent you're facing is higher SPD than you -even then, you can just continue the block until you get to make your riposte on your next phase.

[Southern Cross]

True enough-but remember,that as they are built now,Combat Skill Levels don't affect Initiative-thus,in a superheroic campaign a character with DEX 23 and no Combat Skill Levels will usually beat a DEX 18 character with +2 Combat Skill Levels in HTH,even when engaged in melee combat.

[CTaylor]

Plus, the guy with DEX 23 always has 8 OCV and DCV, while the guy with 6 OCV and DCV only has +2 for one of them at a time. Combat Skill Levels aren't always in use, they have to be put in each area and defined before use.

[Opal]

True enough-but remember,that as they are built now,Combat Skill Levels don't affect Initiative-thus,in a superheroic campaign a character with DEX 23 and no Combat Skill Levels will usually beat a DEX 18 character with +2 Combat Skill Levels in HTH,even when engaged in melee combat.I wouldn't count on that, if that's the only difference. For HTH levels to be worth buying rather than tighter levels with Martial Arts, the two characters would have to have quite a variety of HTH combat options - and no real interest in ranged combat, at all. Also, the CV breakpoint here favors one character, if you compared 18 to 24 or 23 to 29, the net-of-SPD cost of 2 CV worth of DEX would be 12, not 10.

But, assuming your comparison, in HTH, DEX 23 goes first, but, DEX 18 can abort to a defensive manuever, like Dodge, in which case DEX 23 goes against the high DCV both that phase, and his next, after which DEX 18 can attack at full OCV, against which 23 cannot defend. Next phase, DEX 18 can abort, again. If he ever wants to go first, he can choose to Block on one phase, and then go first the next. At some point, he could also do more damage, rather than boost his OCV, if desired.

Of course, if the two were Martial Artists, and DEX 18 guy had 3 levels for 9 points, instead of two for 10, the edge might well go to him.

Eliminate the breakpoint favoring the higher DEX character, and the level-based character has enough for a single-attack OCV level on top of 2 HTH levels - or 4 martial arts levels.

[Vondy]

Okay, here's one I've always been curious about: why are DCV levels 5 Points. It seems like it would be a -1 limitation on an 8 Point Combat level, which would come out to 4 points. And in terms of all things being equal, aren't defenses normally cheaper than attacks. Namely, is there a specific reason it has to the same cost as hand to hand or ranged combat levels? Its not a big deal. I've always just used the list price and been happy with it. Its a quibble on 1 point. But for some reason it nags at me now and again.

[James Gillen]

Okay, here's one I've always been curious about: why are DCV levels 5 Points. It seems like it would be a -1 limitation on an 8 Point Combat level, which would come out to 4 points. And in terms of all things being equal, aren't defenses normally cheaper than attacks. Namely, is there a specific reason it has to the same cost as hand to hand or ranged combat levels? Its not a big deal. I've always just used the list price and been happy with it. Its a quibble on 1 point. But for some reason it nags at me now and again.


For some reason I've noticed that the points for Skills correspond to the "break points" for Powers and Characteristics- mostly 3s, but also 5s and 8s, with maximum (Overall Skill Level) being 10. The exceptions of course are Familiarities and 2-point Background Skills.

jg

[Southern Cross]

Well,I personally think that additional Skill levels should be represented by limited versions of the appropriate characteristic.(I also think that DEX & EGO should be split into multiple characteristics too.YMMV).

[Vondy]

For some reason I've noticed that the points for Skills correspond to the "break points" for Powers and Characteristics- mostly 3s, but also 5s and 8s, with maximum (Overall Skill Level) being 10. The exceptions of course are Familiarities and 2-point Background Skills.

jg

Yeah, they do. Its just a head-scratcher for me, for some reason.

[BobGreenwade]

I don't think I'd make this a change by default, but I think a couple of paragraphs on making new classes of Skills based on other Characteristics would be a good move for Our Favorite Gaming Toolkit. The Ultimate Mentalist already has that ball rolling with Willpower Skills; Strength could be the basis for Exertion Skills (and Climbing and Hoist are a good start for such a category); Comeliness could be the basis for a few Appearance Skills (with Seduction as a start); and I'm sure someone could come up with logic and names for Skills based on Constitution and Body.

[AnotherSkip]

Introduce "Movement Skill Levels" as a separate category. They've been around since 1st edition, but they've never been explained. There are characters who have 2-point Skill Levels with "Flight" - it's never been spelled out what these levels actually do. Do you get +1 OCV with any attack you make, so long as you're flying? That's quite a lot for 2 points, especially considering that a flying character is likely to be flying almost all the time, while in combat.


I think this illustates a point with book Design but this is relevant to skills especially since the skills rules are all over the place, MSL's have multible paragraphs of explanation on pg 242 of the 5th (non revised) in Movement. A good place but not necessarily where you would expect it in some ways it should be in with the skills section as well as time taken to use and ANY combat modifiers to skills. even though there is an excellent index, those of us with Attention span/memory disorders who can't remember names or when there are things without names (such as the penalties for using a skill faster than normal whatever we will call that) then the index wo't be of much use. buying things without having at least in the description indexing causes these sorts of problems. it may make for a lengthier easier to use book but it will make for shorter games. :) a trade so to speak.
I got my head handed to me by a guy when he whipped out sweep manuvers and we were still giving him full DCV and Half Move.... we knew there was a reason we didn't use them but we didn't look up the "Super effective" combat manuver till after the fellow PC had beaten me.

[StGrimblefig]

I don't think I'd make this a change by default, but I think a couple of paragraphs on making new classes of Skills based on other Characteristics would be a good move for Our Favorite Gaming Toolkit. The Ultimate Mentalist already has that ball rolling with Willpower Skills; Strength could be the basis for Exertion Skills (and Climbing and Hoist are a good start for such a category); Comeliness could be the basis for a few Appearance Skills (with Seduction as a start); and I'm sure someone could come up with logic and names for Skills based on Constitution and Body.
I tend to agree that there should be (at least a few guidelines on how to create) skills for characteristics other than INT, DEX & PRE. I particularly have opined in the past that any Characteristic-based roll could be able to be practiced and trained to the point of being a skill.

That being said, I also think we should be careful that the skills presented actually are an application of the Characteristic involved. For example: As written, Climbing and Hoist are, in my opinion, as much about knowing the best way to do their respective tasks so that they use a minimum of Strength, rather than skill at using Strength. STR-based skills would seem to me to be about controlling how much strength you use. They could be used to aid the distance that a thing is thrown, or how hard to hold that person you just grabbed so that they cannot get away, but you do not break any bones.

I could even see it getting as esoteric as having a skill to represent the 'muscle memory' of athletes in certain sports -- many sports (and pub games) that involve throwing, pushing, hitting, etc. a ball, puck, dart, or whatever actually consist of two main components: Aim (represented by DEX) and Power (represented by STR). There is probably an INT-based skill, as well, to be able to properly read the situation and determine the best way to play it.

CON, BODY, and COM are difficult, because they are decidedly passive Characteristics. CON and BODY represent your ability to resist things, without actively doing anything to enable or disable that ability. There are, however, CON rolls for resisting disease or poisons. These could be "trained" by building up a resistance over time (the movie "The Princess Bride" comes to mind: "I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."). Of course, this pushes the boundary of the Immunity Power, but this is not an absolute, as that is.

I do not know of any rolls based on the BODY Characteristic. I am not sure that skills based on BODY would be worth the cost. Depending on the genre, BODY could be going up and down rather wildly, meaning that your skill roll would be constantly changing (or am I remembering badly and skills are only based upon the base value, rather than the current value, of the characteristic?).

COM is, of course, the subject of much debate. I would avoid drawing the attention of the zealots on either side, so I will choose to not enter that debate.

[JmOz]

I tend to agree that there should be (at least a few guidelines on how to create) skills for characteristics other than INT, DEX & PRE. I particularly have opined in the past that any Characteristic-based roll could be able to be practiced and trained to the point of being a skill.

That being said, I also think we should be careful that the skills presented actually are an application of the Characteristic involved. For example: As written, Climbing and Hoist are, in my opinion, as much about knowing the best way to do their respective tasks so that they use a minimum of Strength, rather than skill at using Strength. STR-based skills would seem to me to be about controlling how much strength you use. They could be used to aid the distance that a thing is thrown, or how hard to hold that person you just grabbed so that they cannot get away, but you do not break any bones.

I could even see it getting as esoteric as having a skill to represent the 'muscle memory' of athletes in certain sports -- many sports (and pub games) that involve throwing, pushing, hitting, etc. a ball, puck, dart, or whatever actually consist of two main components: Aim (represented by DEX) and Power (represented by STR). There is probably an INT-based skill, as well, to be able to properly read the situation and determine the best way to play it.

CON, BODY, and COM are difficult, because they are decidedly passive Characteristics. CON and BODY represent your ability to resist things, without actively doing anything to enable or disable that ability. There are, however, CON rolls for resisting disease or poisons. These could be "trained" by building up a resistance over time (the movie "The Princess Bride" comes to mind: "I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."). Of course, this pushes the boundary of the Immunity Power, but this is not an absolute, as that is.

I do not know of any rolls based on the BODY Characteristic. I am not sure that skills based on BODY would be worth the cost. Depending on the genre, BODY could be going up and down rather wildly, meaning that your skill roll would be constantly changing (or am I remembering badly and skills are only based upon the base value, rather than the current value, of the characteristic?).

COM is, of course, the subject of much debate. I would avoid drawing the attention of the zealots on either side, so I will choose to not enter that debate.

Which dove tail's nicely on the idea I mentioned on page 1, where a skill would not have a characteristic it is based on, but rather be a modifier to a characteristic in general, so, using climbing, it might be this time a Str, or a Con, or a Dex, or a Int roll depending on the situation and you would use your climbing skill, so assuming strength and your str was 15, and you had climbing at +1 you would need a 13- (Plus/minus other mods)

[BobGreenwade]

Which dove tail's nicely on the idea I mentioned on page 1, where a skill would not have a characteristic it is based on, but rather be a modifier to a characteristic in general, so, using climbing, it might be this time a Str, or a Con, or a Dex, or a Int roll depending on the situation and you would use your climbing skill, so assuming strength and your str was 15, and you had climbing at +1 you would need a 13- (Plus/minus other mods)I agree -- it does dovetail nicely, and I think the idea is worth considerable merit. :thumbup: My suggestion that started this subthread would probably only be valid without it, but if I had a choice between the two I'd take yours.

[Crypt]

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?
......However, it’s worth considering whether making all Skills non-Characteristic-based would improve the System. “Realistically,” I think that competence with most learned abilities come from study, training, practice, and experience — not innate aptitude, though innate aptitude can play a part. But as it stands in the HERO System, it’s easy to look at things and assume that for 3 points, you can buy a roll that lets a character succeed well over 50% of the time based on natural aptitude alone (i.e., a Characteristic-based roll).


I think that opposing Innate Vs Acquired when speaking about Chars Vs Skills is a common mistake.
Stats are both innate and acquired (how much do you think your Int or Str were at birth ?) and, "realistically", probably more acquired than innate (influenced by environmental, social, psychological factors more than ADN factors. Eg. on the average, unless you have some major physical afflictions (which may be innate) you CAN be as bodybuilded as Schwartzy if you really want to. The majority of people won't do that but they could, whatever their birth.)
I doubt Einstein was born with a genius-baby IQ and he would have make no physics theory without having any psychological/cultural interest in such things.

At the same time if you have not improved your abstraction capacities you simply won't be able to do any complex physics/mathematics works.
If you are Woody Allen you will have to improve your fitness before (or while) being able to perform any athletic feats.

So, IMHO, Chars and Skills play on the same ground and I think that making Skills not based on Chars would be an awful error (and would not be fun.)

Please, do not break this link :(

[Vondy]

Isn't that how GURPS does it?

I looked at this last week, and you know, while it is GURPS, I don't hate it. :straight:

[Vondy]

Which dove tail's nicely on the idea I mentioned on page 1, where a skill would not have a characteristic it is based on, but rather be a modifier to a characteristic in general, so, using climbing, it might be this time a Str, or a Con, or a Dex, or a Int roll depending on the situation and you would use your climbing skill, so assuming strength and your str was 15, and you had climbing at +1 you would need a 13- (Plus/minus other mods)

You know, it has enough internal logic and merit to bear serious consideration.

[Vondy]

CON, BODY, and COM are difficult, because they are decidedly passive Characteristics. CON and BODY represent your ability to resist things, without actively doing anything to enable or disable that ability. There are, however, CON rolls for resisting disease or poisons. These could be "trained" by building up a resistance over time (the movie "The Princess Bride" comes to mind: "I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder."). Of course, this pushes the boundary of the Immunity Power, but this is not an absolute, as that is.


In terms of CON, you could have skills for long distance running, pearl diving, and the like in lieu of buying powers or reduced endurance.

[CTaylor]

Strength or CON could give the ability to carry more without tiring; in other words, encumbrance modifiers (I have this built at Encumbrance Levels as a talent, but it would be good to see this mainstreamed somehow). Bob can just carry more, because he's such a brute. Mules can carry more than horses, etc.

[AnotherSkip]

How about Con being the base stat for a skill based equivalent of resisting tempiture level induced problems?

[BobGreenwade]

How about Con being the base stat for a skill based equivalent of resisting tempiture level induced problems?Sort of a CON-based version of Survival. I like the idea :thumbup: -- not as an official Skill, of course, but something that could be mentioned in passing on the general topic of Skills based on Characteristics other than DEX, INT, and PRE (assuming those categories still exist in 6th Ed).

[ghost-angel]

Okay, here's one I've always been curious about: why are DCV levels 5 Points. It seems like it would be a -1 limitation on an 8 Point Combat level, which would come out to 4 points. And in terms of all things being equal, aren't defenses normally cheaper than attacks. Namely, is there a specific reason it has to the same cost as hand to hand or ranged combat levels? Its not a big deal. I've always just used the list price and been happy with it. Its a quibble on 1 point. But for some reason it nags at me now and again.

One thing worth noting is that DCV Levels work vs HtH and Ranged Attacks simultaneously. Where you must specify which Offensive Level you want and can't change after purchase.

Whether that's worth a full 5 points could be debated I suppose.

[ghost-angel]

Strength or CON could give the ability to carry more without tiring; in other words, encumbrance modifiers (I have this built at Encumbrance Levels as a talent, but it would be good to see this mainstreamed somehow). Bob can just carry more, because he's such a brute. Mules can carry more than horses, etc.

How would you modify the current Encumbrance rules to fit this?

[CTaylor]

The way I have it right now is each level of encumbrance talent reduces your effective weight carried by one step (100% becomes 75%).

[IndianaJoe3]

I was thinking about all the different kinds of Skill Levels there were and I started wondering: can Skill Levels be unified? I'm picturing a skill level chart, with the cheapest PSL (+1 to one specific kind of roll, under uncommon circumstances) in one corner, and overall levels (+1 with any one roll, at any time) in the opposite. Maybe, "build a skill level" rules, like for martial maneuvers in UMA.

[Beast]

My thoughts on whether skills should be bought as all being general or stat based
if they go general then there will be no need to to buy up int so you will see more characters with a 10 int
dex based will get those wanting dex to be cheaper
as will those for presence based skills
eliminate Int all together
add these bases for various skill types
perception 11-(goes with what ever senses you have)
knowledge based 8/11-(need to remember something)
reasoning based 8/11-(need to go through flow chart or fomula)
improv based 8/11-(creating stuff on the fly
social based 8/11-(presence)
dexterity based 8/11-(eye hand coordination)
agility based 8/11-(body movement)

1 pt get you familarity(8-)
3 pts gets you working knowledge in that skill,+1pt for +1 with only that skill
5 pts to raise 1 catagory 1 pt(perception,knowledge,reasoning,etc)

probably going to have to revise the cost or eliminate some characteristics and points needed for starting characters

[CTaylor]

As Shir1964 has pointed out elsewhere, there's some problem with how climbing works. The effort required, what happens when you fail, that sort of thing. It's always been a skill, and in a certain sense it is: anyone can climb, you can train to be better at it, etc.

At the same time, it's almost a power: some can climb faster, some with extraordinary ability can climb very fast over unreasonable surfaces. Is this just clinging with a climbing roll?

[schir1964]

I think Climbing should be redefined and made a Power.

Or more specifically, I think that normal realistic climbing that is dependent on Tools and Experience should be relegated to Knowledge/Profession skills. This is due to the fact that normal realistic climbing rate is completely dependent on terrain and equipment available for traversing the terrain type. Climbing rate has very little dependence on an actual unique skill. Climbing skill is the knowledge of the tools involved and experience in climbing which is more closely associated with the Background Type Skills. So I see no reason to have the skill give a rate of vertical climb since that should be affected by the terrain, weather, and climbing tools available.

Now for the ability to Climb without the need for any climbing tools with a guaranteed climbing rate (even on sheer surfaces), there should be a Climbing Power. The power could have different adders or components to allow for easy building of different type of climbing or restrictions as necessary.

This way, for Heroic campaigns, climbing rate will be determined by the GM as it should be, but in Superheroic campaigns you can have characters traverse vertical surfaces at a separate rate than other movement types.

Just Another Insignificant Idea

Reposted here for reference.

- Christopher Mullins

[Southern Cross]

Isn't that the Cling power?

[Southern Cross]

Sounds like Limited Flight.

[CTaylor]

I have been thinking about how expensive it can be to simulate the basic knowledge and information an ordinary human gains through their lifetime in Hero. Granted, an 11- is a fair level of training and a 14- is roughly equal to a doctorate in the field, so you don't have to be incredible at every skill, but life experience does add up to quite a bit.

What I came up with is this:
Knowledge skills are a good shortcut for broad sections of information, an Area Knowledge of your nation will give you basic information about each major city, region, history and so on.

Like Survival or Weapon Familiarity, I suggest familiarity adders to basic KS or sciences that will cover each area under them. For instance, if you have KS: animals, you can buy a 1 point reptiles familiarity that will give you the same roll as the KS, but with reptiles. AK could be given the same treatment: KS: United Kingdom can also give you 1 point for Wales, or English accents or rivers of the UK. This would give you the full roll (even if it is based on INT) for each skill under it.

This seems like a good way to make this sort of background knowledge less costly and encourage more of it in character building.

[Chris Goodwin]

Interaction Skills

Acting should be broken up into Performance and Deception. Performance is the ability to give a convincing performance on stage, and can be helped along with various PS's (PS: Actor, PS: Musician, PS: Guitarist, and the like). Deception is the ability to lie, straight up.

New Interaction Skills:

Command: This is the Skill used to get someone to do something you tell them to do, just because you have told them to do it. Common among, and actually taught to, police and military officers; also common among parents.

Intimidation: This is the ability to make a threat and convince someone that you intend to carry it out. Whether you actually intend to or not is irrelevant (and it can be sad when you actually intend to carry it out but fail your roll...)

Leadership: This is the ability to convince someone that their goals align with yours, and then to work to achieve those goals.

[BobGreenwade]

And in addition to Chris' list, there's always the Interviewing Skill I created for my Digital Hero article, for getting information out of a willing subject (though for the main rulebook it would probably have to be considerably simplified from the heavily detailed version I made there).

[Vondy]

Just to be a revolutionary firebrand:

I've never liked the division between "background skills" and regular skills. I think there should just be "skills." Background skills, while sometimes being more information oriented, are still skills and can still have plots hanging on them now and again. A character with KS: Finance should just have Finance on their sheet. I don't regard them as less important, either, so I think all skills should have a single cost schema.

Just my 2 AP.

[BobGreenwade]

Just to be a revolutionary firebrand:

I've never liked the division between "background skills" and regular skills. I think there should just be "skills." Background skills, while sometimes being more information oriented, are still skills and can still have plots hanging on them now and again. A character with KS: Finance should just have Finance on their sheet. I don't regard them as less important, either, so I think all skills should have a single cost schema.

Just my 2 AP.Sort of along these lines, it might be practical to have a sort of "overall Background Skill" (I think there may be a mechanic for it in The Ultimate Skill, but I don't remember what it's called) that costs 3 points for a base Roll and +2 points per +1 like a regular Skill, and encompasses KS, PS, and SS in the same thing.

It's just a thought. :)

[Vondy]

Sort of along these lines, it might be practical to have a sort of "overall Background Skill" (I think there may be a mechanic for it in The Ultimate Skill, but I don't remember what it's called) that costs 3 points for a base Roll and +2 points per +1 like a regular Skill, and encompasses KS, PS, and SS in the same thing.

It's just a thought. :)


Yes, it could just be called Background Skill, abbreviated BS! :D

[CTaylor]

Well the reason Knowedge Skill and Professional Skill are there is because there's a real life practical difference between knowing and being able to do.

[Southern Cross]

This is true.I like the idea of using the same price scheme for all skills.Here's how I'd handle it:
Familiarity:Character has an 8 or less roll with the skill(s).Cost: 1 point.
Practiced:The character can usually perform the skill-i.e. has an 11 or less roll.Cost:2 points.
Adept:The character has a 12 or less with the skill.Alternatively,if the character has18+ of the relevant Characteristic,the character may use the skill by making a CHAR roll.Cost:3 points.

[Vondy]

Well the reason Knowedge Skill and Professional Skill are there is because there's a real life practical difference between knowing and being able to do.


True, but that's not really the point. Is there a mechanical difference in terms of how it functions on the meta-gaming level? Do they actually function differently on the gaming level? I don't think so. The GM asks for a 3d6 roll vs. your skill level with relevant mods and you make the roll with success or failure impacting the game in whatever way is appropriate. The fact that one is active "doing" and the other passive "knowing or thinking" in real life doesn't mean much in terms of game effects. I can write financier (PS) and finance (KS) on my sheet without having separate skill categories or costs for them. I don't mind parsing them out into different categories on a character sheet for speed of reference, but having different cost shemas - or formal mechanical categories where no actual mechanical difference exists - doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, I know skill enhancers need the categories to work, but with the advent of expert there's really no need to have more than one skill enhancer - namely, expert itself. You can name it what any of the extant skill enhancers are and get the same effect, or make it custom the way you want it. As a result, the distinction has become largely moot.

[ajackson]

True, but that's not really the point. Is there a mechanical difference in terms of how it functions on the meta-gaming level? Do they actually function differently on the gaming level?
Frequently they do. Standard skills are usually usable in play without any special GM attention. Many background skills are unlikely to be a factor in play unless the GM pays specific attention.

[Vondy]

Frequently they do. Standard skills are usually usable in play without any special GM attention. Many background skills are unlikely to be a factor in play unless the GM pays specific attention.

Thats not a mechanical difference, that's a scenario relevance question.

[ajackson]

Thats not a mechanical difference, that's a scenario relevance question.
Okay, how about "Standard skills have defined effects. Background skills do not."

[CTaylor]

Do they actually function differently on the gaming level?

By your definition ECV and OCV are functionally identical: same dice rolled, same mechanical system of comparing offense and defense. I'm not sure I understand the need for them to be different.

[Vondy]

By your definition ECV and OCV are functionally identical: same dice rolled, same mechanical system of comparing offense and defense. I'm not sure I understand the need for them to be different.

This is a straw man. I don't think its intentional, but it is.

The system has one combat value mechanic based on different characteristic based values.

The system has one skill mechanic based on different characteristic based values. The exceptions are general and familiarity skills, which is what this hinges on - see below.

In terms of comparisons, the distinction between OCV and ECV can be compared to the distinction between agility, interaction, and willpower skills in that the different values are derived from different stats.

It cannot be coherently compared to the difference between regular skills and background skills purchased as characteristic based skills. There isn't a conceptual point of contact on that level. Nor is there a conceptual point of contact between combat values and skills that are purchased as familiarities or general skills. Those are different mechanics, combat values use one mechanic with values derived from different characteristics.

We can ask simple questions to define the issue:

1) is there a mechanical difference between how demolotions (INT) and climbing (DEX) function?

2) is there a mechanical difference between how climbing Climbing (DEX) and PS: Dancing (DEX) function?

The answer in both cases is no. So why do they have different cost schemas?

You could argue that background skills generally provide complimentary rolls and not straight rolls, but that argument doesn't hold water under examination. While they are often leveraged to provide complimentary rolls [notably science and knowledge skills], every single one of them can also provide a straight roll on their own - and some don't lend themselves to complimentary rolls at all. The issue with frequency isn't a mechanics issue, its a play-style issue.

And lets dig into the cost schemas for a moment. Is there a reason only background skills can be purchased as general [not characteristic based] skills? Is dancing any less characteristic based than climbing is? Is solving a physics problem any less intelligence intensive than solving a technical design problem with inventor? I don't think so. And that's my issue here. Why do background skills operate as an exception to the rule.

There's no reason these skills should be categorized or costed any differently from the skills on the main skill list. Either all skills need to be able to leverage the general skill schema, or it should be removed from the system.
The only background skill that functions differently on a mechanical level is language skills, which has no role and functions on a level system.

I think it would be better to include Knowledge Skill, Professional Skill, and Science Skill in the same category as the other skills and have them all use one cost schema or have acess to both schemas without making a mechanical, meaning rules, distinction between them (with the notable exception of languages).

The only practical difference on a gaming level is that the regular skills have a finite number and set names and spheres of effect, while the potential names of background skills are effectively infinate. That doesn't justify parsing them into a separate category or costing them differently.

[Vondy]

Okay, how about "Standard skills have defined effects. Background skills do not."

I would rephrase that: standard skills have pre-defined effects, background skills have effects defined when you define it at design time. However, once you have tacked a name on a background skill its still functions the same way as a standard skill. The difference is that its a catchall with a variable name because it is impossible for a game system to list every possible skill a player might want within space restrictions. A book can only be so big. At the same time: opposed and unopposed tests are still handled with the same mechanics, have the same chances of success and failure, and can have scenes or plots hanging on them. They can provide complimentary rolls, but aren't restricted to that, and in theory, a standard skill could also come into play as a complimentary roll. I see no reason KS, PS, and SS shouldn't be defined as standard skills with as-of-yet-undefined names attached to them. They could be collapsed into BS (background skill), but having them remain distinct within the standard skill category is psychologically useful I think.

[CTaylor]

You're not selling me on why they have to change other than "I don't care for it."

[James Gillen]

You're not selling me on why they have to change other than "I don't care for it."

I'm afraid I have to agree.

JG

[AnotherSkip]

How about they have identical performance therfore they should have identical costing?

[as a side note I personally think this way when building my campaign characters all KS, PS & AK etc... are bought at the 1 8-, 2 11-, 3 Char based, 5 Char based +1
not the 2/1 structure]

In addition there is no difference or price break when including the Background Skills in skill levels so they are treated the same there.

[ajackson]

How about they have identical performance therfore they should have identical costing?
You have yet to convince us that they have identical performance.

[AnotherSkip]

Irregardless of whether it is a background skill or not a character still rolls the same dice for a check based upon the same probabilites whether or not the check comes up frequently, infrequently, or once every blue moon.

My own players have made a lot of use of AK: Den City and will be highly unlikely to use Burecratics. Otoh PS: Business Exec will get a lot of use as soon as her rival starts stepping up the pace for the affections of the PC's father... and future ownership of the company while again Lipreading may be a back seat skill for the campaign. PS: Vigilante is a key skill in my street level campaign, while Navigation (Space) might as well be a throw-away-the-character-points for two years or more. (but the player does recieve Gm appreciation for excellent in Character building and will receive other benefits from those points as compensation).

Tactics though a defined skill, is SPECIFICALLY limited by the book in it's use to be at least as infrequent as most KS's & PS's. Should that make it a Background Skill?

[IndianaJoe3]

Just to be a revolutionary firebrand:

I've never liked the division between "background skills" and regular skills. I think there should just be "skills." Background skills, while sometimes being more information oriented, are still skills and can still have plots hanging on them now and again.
I get into this a bit in a response to you in the characteristics thread. Background Skills are generally based off of the Memory aspect of intelligence, where Intellect skills fall under Awareness and/or Thought. BS are cheaper because they've been decoupled from INT.

[Vondy]

I get into this a bit in a response to you in the characteristics thread. Background Skills are generally based off of the Memory aspect of intelligence, where Intellect skills fall under Awareness and/or Thought. BS are cheaper because they've been decoupled from INT.

I totally disagree. While knowledge skills are generally based on memory, science skills, are active intelligence based, language uses several parts of the brain, and many professional skills aren't based on INT at all. And the old phrase knowledge is power comes to mind. I don't see memory as less valuable than any other aspect of intelligence, or than coordination, etc.

And when you break it down, some of the standard skills fall neatly into one of the background skill categories. The distinction makes no sense. The background skills are really a misnomer. They represent catch-alls because no game can incorporate every skill a player might take. The standard skills are just "very common" gamer buys. I think the cost differential has nothing to do with how they fun