Skills Issues

[Hugh Neilson]

Seems to me that's the GM making the Disarm useless, not the system. Gunman got a signifcant point savings for OAF - Disarm being effective is one reason for those savings.

[Vulcan]

And HERO System is about dramtic realism. I repeat, how many times in the movies has a character dove for a gun, grabbed it, and shot someone all in one quick move? It's an action genre convention. Heck, Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles! If it's in a spoof of a genre, it's a genre convention.

Desperately hoping I'm using the right phrase....

[James Gillen]

"What'd he say?"
"He said the Sheriff is near!"

[jtelson]

And HERO System is about dramtic realism. I repeat, how many times in the movies has a character dove for a gun, grabbed it, and shot someone all in one quick move? It's an action genre convention. Heck, Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles! If it's in a spoof of a genre, it's a genre convention.

Desperately hoping I'm using the right phrase....

As a GM I've traditionally used Fast Draw, with a -2 penalty for the weapon not being in a traditional position, as the skill for this; So 1/2 move to the weapon, Fast Draw to Ready it, Shoot. I don't think I've ever seen anyone allow it with an acrobatics roll, and even if they did disarm still wouldn't be worthless against melee weapons.

[AnotherSkip]

Skill and Characteristic relationship
I don't like the "apply different stats to a single skill" idea -- it is too open to vagueness and differing interpretations, and also discourages specialization (if you buy the skill up, you get better at it with all stats, right?). If a given task has relevance to multiple stats, there should be multiple skills for that task.


But there isn't multible attributes for Skills, all skills (no matter how they are used) go off of their one defined stat (whichever one that is). for example some to many people feel that the Dex to teamwork relationship is pretty nebulous. maybe int would be a better choice. You cannot however under the current rules buy Teamwork as even an Int based skill much less try to talk the Gm into "this is a mental aspect of teamwork so it should be based off of Int" idea. By allowing suggestions for skills to go to the relevant stat rather than being predefined you increase the flexibility of skills and increase the viability of all stats, not just a narrow corridor.


In addition Int is probably the one place wherein 5 pt skill levels = Int every other stat has other uses that are outside of the skill mechanic. Int doesnt.

[nexus]

As a GM I've traditionally used Fast Draw, with a -2 penalty for the weapon not being in a traditional position, as the skill for this; So 1/2 move to the weapon, Fast Draw to Ready it, Shoot. I don't think I've ever seen anyone allow it with an acrobatics roll, and even if they did disarm still wouldn't be worthless against melee weapons.

Or if Gunman has already used his phase or doesn't have one before the MAist acts again. And having a gun doesn't mean an automatic hit in Hero against a hand to hand combatant. Personally, I've also considered snatching some off the ground in the middle of combat at least a half phase action but Fast Draw could offset it. I'd make the penalty a little higher I think out of personal taste. Usually being disarmed is at least inconvenient.

Edit: On second thought, snatching up something quickly sounds like a good use of a raw Dexterity roll.

[Hugh Neilson]

As a GM I've traditionally used Fast Draw, with a -2 penalty for the weapon not being in a traditional position, as the skill for this; So 1/2 move to the weapon, Fast Draw to Ready it, Shoot. I don't think I've ever seen anyone allow it with an acrobatics roll, and even if they did disarm still wouldn't be worthless against melee weapons.

And HERO System is about dramtic realism. I repeat, how many times in the movies has a character dove for a gun, grabbed it, and shot someone all in one quick move? It's an action genre convention. Heck, Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles! If it's in a spoof of a genre, it's a genre convention.

Desperately hoping I'm using the right phrase....

Or if Gunman has already used his phase or doesn't have one before the MAist acts again. And having a gun doesn't mean an automatic hit in Hero against a hand to hand combatant. Personally, I've also considered snatching some off the ground in the middle of combat at least a half phase action but Fast Draw could offset it. I'd make the penalty a little higher I think out of personal taste. Usually being disarmed is at least inconvenient.

Edit: On second thought, snatching up something quickly sounds like a good use of a raw Dexterity roll.


I can see snatching it up quickly as a raw DEX roll, but you still have to correctly orient it to aim and fire. If I can pick it up from the ground so quickly and easily, a holster should be even more quick and easy. That woud defeat the purpose of having Fast Draw.

And I maintain that, if Disarm is rendered useless, the limitation for OAF is no longer appropriate. The character has a Restrainable power, or an OIF, not an OAF, if it is readily recoverable. You can't have it both ways.

[jtelson]

Or if Gunman has already used his phase or doesn't have one before the MAist acts again. And having a gun doesn't mean an automatic hit in Hero against a hand to hand combatant. Personally, I've also considered snatching some off the ground in the middle of combat at least a half phase action but Fast Draw could offset it. I'd make the penalty a little higher I think out of personal taste. Usually being disarmed is at least inconvenient.

Edit: On second thought, snatching up something quickly sounds like a good use of a raw Dexterity roll.

Snatching it off the ground seems like it would normally be considered a 'grab' which is traditionally both a half phase and terminal action; Fast draw allows the readying of a weapon as a 0-phase action rather than a 1/2 phase one which is why it seemed the most appropriate, the penalty is, as you say, a matter of taste and circumstance.

[BobGreenwade]

And HERO System is about dramtic realism. I repeat, how many times in the movies has a character dove for a gun, grabbed it, and shot someone all in one quick move? It's an action genre convention. Heck, Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles! If it's in a spoof of a genre, it's a genre convention.

Desperately hoping I'm using the right phrase....When it happens in a game, it should happen at a penalty or have some special requirement or other challenge. If the character uses Fast Draw to pick it up, then he needs to have that Skill and make a successful Roll. If he tries to do it with just a DEX Roll, he should have some sort of OCV and/or DCV penalty.

As Hugh said, it's actually the GM that's making the maneuver useless, not the system. (However, it would be good if something specific was said in 6E, probably in the Combat section, about this kind of situation.)

[Paragon]

Seems to me that's the GM making the Disarm useless, not the system. Gunman got a signifcant point savings for OAF - Disarm being effective is one reason for those savings.

Yup. If you don't like the fact Hero takes a somewhat simulationist approach to things like drawing weapons and acquireing and reorienting them when picked up, that's your gig, but then its questionable to object to other mechanics that were based on that assumption.

[Paragon]

And HERO System is about dramtic realism. I repeat,

That doesn't mean it doesn't fairly frequently use relatively conservative simulationist ethics in its mechanics, and you can't expect one part of the rules not to assume the other part is in play (after all, as noted drawing from a holster is a half-phase action; I'm hard pressed to see why picking a gun up of the ground and getting it in position shuld be less). Essentially, if you change parts of the rules assumption, yeah, strangely other parts might not work as well. Disarm is based on the idea that requiring a weapon is time consuming; if you make it not time consuming, its going to be mostly useless.

[Vulcan]

The simple solution is replace the Martial Disarm with the Martial Takeaway from UMA. That way the object 'disarmed' is placed under the 'disarming' character's control, instead of having it fly off to a random location (which might be of some benefit to 'Gunman').

[Paragon]

The simple solution is replace the Martial Disarm with the Martial Takeaway from UMA. That way the object 'disarmed' is placed under the 'disarming' character's control, instead of having it fly off to a random location (which might be of some benefit to 'Gunman').


Yeah, but this assumes everybody is, or wants to have it that easy to retrieve dropped weapons; as long as they don't, the current distinction works fine.

[Vulcan]

The point I'm trying to make isn't 'Martial Disarm' is useless," it's "Martial Takeaway is clearly superior by a very large margin.'

Takeaway is a lot like Disarm, but without the randomness that makes Disarm problematic. Not to mention the action genre staple of diving for a gun on the ground, grabbing it, rolling out, and shooting, all before the opponent can react (sounds like a single phase to me).

Does it break down in HEROs mechanics? Yes. But GM's still allow it because it's genre-appropriate. Sure, there are usualy penalties involved, but big deal, Gunman is still moving away from Martial Artist which is what he ultimately wants!

With Takeaway, the gun stays in the Martial Artist's hand (or at worst at his feet) where Gunman will have a real problem getting it back.

[jtelson]

The point I'm trying to make isn't 'Martial Disarm' is useless," it's "Martial Takeaway is clearly superior by a very large margin.'

Takeaway is a lot like Disarm, but without the randomness that makes Disarm problematic. Not to mention the action genre staple of diving for a gun on the ground, grabbing it, rolling out, and shooting, all before the opponent can react (sounds like a single phase to me).

Does it break down in HEROs mechanics? Yes. But GM's still allow it because it's genre-appropriate. Sure, there are usualy penalties involved, but big deal, Gunman is still moving away from Martial Artist which is what he ultimately wants!

With Takeaway, the gun stays in the Martial Artist's hand (or at worst at his feet) where Gunman will have a real problem getting it back.

You feel that an optional maneuver from an ancillary sourcebook is superior to a maneuver listed in the core rules. That's almost always going to happen. Takeaway is a thing that GM's can opt to allow in their games not a given so making that kind of comparision isn't really useful or fair to the system.

And as for genre appropriate actions that's once again in the hands of the GM, as I said in my games in order to pull that stunt off you would need to have the correct Fast Draw Skill, and beable to make that roll with a penalty. If my players felt that was an unfair application of the rules, we would discuss it and come to an accord (That's not how they would describe it but that's what happens)

[Vulcan]

You feel that an optional maneuver from an ancillary sourcebook is superior to a maneuver listed in the core rules. That's almost always going to happen. Takeaway is a thing that GM's can opt to allow in their games not a given so making that kind of comparision isn't really useful or fair to the system.

And as for genre appropriate actions that's once again in the hands of the GM, as I said in my games in order to pull that stunt off you would need to have the correct Fast Draw Skill, and beable to make that roll with a penalty. If my players felt that was an unfair application of the rules, we would discuss it and come to an accord (That's not how they would describe it but that's what happens)

It's not so much that the optional maneuver is superior (it is), but that it reflects the way martial art disarms actually work. Someone who actually knows a martial art that teaches a disarming technique knows what I'm talking about. Disarms end with the weapon in the martial artists hand where he can then dispose of it in a safe way - or shoot 'gunman' if he still seem inclined to resist.

The only time I've ever seen a disarmed weapon fly 30' or so was in an old Zorro cartoon.

And when was the last time you saw a 'gunman' character without Fast Draw (gunman thugs excluded)?

[jtelson]

It's not so much that the optional maneuver is superior (it is), but that it reflects the way martial art disarms actually work. Someone who actually knows a martial art that teaches a disarming technique knows what I'm talking about. Disarms end with the weapon in the martial artists hand where he can then dispose of it in a safe way - or shoot 'gunman' if he still seem inclined to resist.

The only time I've ever seen a disarmed weapon fly 30' or so was in an old Zorro cartoon.

And when was the last time you saw a 'gunman' character without Fast Draw (gunman thugs excluded)?

More accurate or not doesn't stop it from being optional, and are you arguing that Hero Martial Arts should be more real world accurate or more dramatically/cinematically/genre accurate.

Having an ikkyu in Kendo (Roughly a brown belt, one of two I have although technically only sort of Kendo) I assure you I don't end up with the weapon in my hand. Also in the real world disarms are actions of opportunity, meaning I wouldn't be able to choose when I could disarm someone in a well modeled game

Gunmen often don't have fast draw as being good with a gun isn't always the same as being fast on the draw. Concepts should vary.

[Vulcan]

More accurate or not doesn't stop it from being optional, and are you arguing that Hero Martial Arts should be more real world accurate or more dramatically/cinematically/genre accurate.

I'm not really sure, myself. Although, in the genre, the guy diving after the gun is going for one that was dropped or thrown, not 'disarmed.' A disarm usually end with the 'gunman' being shot, or surrendering since he no longer has a gun.

Having an ikkyu in Kendo (Roughly a brown belt, one of two I have although technically only sort of Kendo) I assure you I don't end up with the weapon in my hand. Also in the real world disarms are actions of opportunity, meaning I wouldn't be able to choose when I could disarm someone in a well modeled game.

I'll give you the 'disarm as action of opportunity,' since I'm not a studied martial artist (more like a action film geek). But I'm guessing that even if you don't retain the gun in your hand after a disarm, it winds up at your feet, not thrown 20-30' away in a random direction, right?

Gunmen often don't have fast draw as being good with a gun isn't always the same as being fast on the draw. Concepts should vary.

But with the usefulness of Fast Draw, not just for what it's intended (which includes DEX vs. DEX, not just clearing the holster) but with the optional rule allowing you to change clips more quickly, I have yet to see a dedicated 'gunman' (as opposed to a gadgeteer or other type 'with a gun') NOT have it.

And just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, a dedicated 'gunman' is one who is built with all or most (certainly the most generally effective ones) of his combat options as a gun (or other OAF). In short, a focused energy projector.

NOT a brick, martial artist, or mentalist who 'also' has a backup gun. Or a thug with a gun, either.

[jtelson]

I'm not really sure, myself. Although, in the genre, the guy diving after the gun is going for one that was dropped or thrown, not 'disarmed.' A disarm usually end with the 'gunman' being shot, or surrendering since he no longer has a gun.

It's often lost as part of a struggle, which would probably be modeled as a disarm, the classic cinematic struggle often ends up with the gun flung and both participants scrambling after it.

I'll give you the 'disarm as action of opportunity,' since I'm not a studied martial artist (more like a action film geek). But I'm guessing that even if you don't retain the gun in your hand after a disarm, it winds up at your feet, not thrown 20-30' away in a random direction, right?

Kendo's a sword form so off in a direction is not unlikely, probably not 20'-30' but once again in many genres 20-30 feet would not be uncommon. In the unarmed form that I'm familiar with the weapon tends to scatter a bit but probably essentially at your feet by Hero terms. Attempting to gain sole control of a weapon is more dangerous than removing it from an opponent's control and in the real world "at your feet" is miles away.

But with the usefulness of Fast Draw, not just for what it's intended (which includes DEX vs. DEX, not just clearing the holster) but with the optional rule allowing you to change clips more quickly, I have yet to see a dedicated 'gunman' (as opposed to a gadgeteer or other type 'with a gun') NOT have it.

And just to make sure I'm not misinterpreted, a dedicated 'gunman' is one who is built with all or most (certainly the most generally effective ones) of his combat options as a gun (or other OAF). In short, a focused energy projector.

NOT a brick, martial artist, or mentalist who 'also' has a backup gun. Or a thug with a gun, either.

This is probably a YMMV thing, there are a lot of ways to go with a Gun focused character. Many of them neither support or require Fast Draw. Utility should not be the watchword for ability selection if it drifts outside of concept.

[Vulcan]

I agree. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[jtelson]

I agree. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

True but it happening isn't a system issue it's an operator issue. I'm pretty sure I don't want 6th edition to be about operator issues, that's how more straight jacketey systems run.

So we should be able to assume, for the purposes of discussion, that while many Gun Concepts include Fast Draw, many Gun Concepts also do not include Fast Draw and that it is therefore not safe to assume that all or perhaps even most Gun Concepts will have Fast Draw.

[Vulcan]

While I agree with you that not all of them should...

[AnotherSkip]

It's not so much that the optional maneuver is superior (it is), but that it reflects the way martial art disarms actually work. Someone who actually knows a martial art that teaches a disarming technique knows what I'm talking about. Disarms end with the weapon in the martial artists hand where he can then dispose of it in a safe way - or shoot 'gunman' if he still seem inclined to resist.

The only time I've ever seen a disarmed weapon fly 30' or so was in an old Zorro cartoon.

And when was the last time you saw a 'gunman' character without Fast Draw (gunman thugs excluded)?

Several fencing and martial art movies have the weapons fly about, you just haven't been looking. :) Specifically in one of the more recent 3 musketeers style movies the guy gets disarmed in a cave the weapon fly's UP in the air the hero touches him with the tip of his sword gets started on his speech and THEN the weapon hits the ground. The Villian never even had a chance!

in addition there is a specific rule in Official Bout Fencing that if you touch your opponent before his weapon hits the ground after disarming him then it is a legal point. Which was exactly what I was thinking about when I saw the above scene....

[jtelson]

While I agree with you that not all of them should...

OK, so since not all of them should then do you agree that it's not a system issue if you happen to be surrounded by people that would always purchase fast draw?

[Talon]

In my experience, picking up a dropped weapon is a half-Phase non-attack action. Interestingly, I can't find a specific rule for this in 5ER (which is an issue for another thread I guess!). Given that, Disarming someone has a 2/3 chance of doing nothing other than making them lose a half-Phase, which most of the time is meaningless. Thus, it rarely gets used.

In modern fiction, there are many instances of guns being knocked out of people's hands and sliding out of easy reach -- the fight then continues as HTH, often with the focal point being to get back to the gun. That is the kind of thing that is hard to do in Hero yet common in dramatic fiction. Maybe the answer is changing the rules for picking up the weapon instead of how far it flies.

[Hugh Neilson]

This seems to have evolved from "Martial Disarm is Useless" to "some characters have abilities that make Martial Disarm less useful against them".

From the 6e perspective, I would suggest the area that needs clarification to be the rules for retrieving the disarmed weapon. I would suggest this needs to be a non-trivial task to avoid rendering Disarm useless, and to ensure that OAF has some pretty clear drawbacks.

[Vulcan]

Yeah, that was pretty much my point too... although I guess I did start out kinda harsh. Martial Disarm isn't really useless, but it's utility is limited.

The point about melee weapons flying around following a disarm is a good one. However, my counterpoint would be that for a melee fighter, being disarmed means going to retrieve your weapon, then coming back to resume combat. The ranged combatant, in the same situation, now has opened the range, which is something he probably wanted in the first place.

[Paragon]

Yeah, that was pretty much my point too... although I guess I did start out kinda harsh. Martial Disarm isn't really useless, but it's utility is limited.

The point about melee weapons flying around following a disarm is a good one. However, my counterpoint would be that for a melee fighter, being disarmed means going to retrieve your weapon, then coming back to resume combat. The ranged combatant, in the same situation, now has opened the range, which is something he probably wanted in the first place.

That's not a given however; as soon as someone has to move and spend a half action, he's lost an attack out of the deal. Depending on the situation that can be a serious penalty; its certainly not particularly likely to be helpful unless the weapon is sent far enough away that his superior movement prevents the person who disarmed him from following and striking while he's doing the retrieve.

[PhilFleischmann]

It seems to me to be a far more common genre trope that a disarm is a significant moment of tension. The gunman is disarmed, and then it's a struggle between the combattants to retrieve the weapon. He doesn't simply get to pick up the weapon and fire it before the disarmer can do anything else.

If nothing else, turning to the weapon and bending down to pick it up should at least entail a DCV penalty.

And this is another area where Holding becomes very important. You hold until the segment before your next phase, disarm the gunman, and then you get another phase on the very next segment, before, or while, the gunman is trying to get his weapon.

[SteveZilla]

Should Disarm be "improved" to funciton similar to Block -- i.e., it allows the Diarm-er to go first in the next Phase (presuming the Block-ee isn't of higher SPD)?

[Markdoc]

That's not a given however; as soon as someone has to move and spend a half action, he's lost an attack out of the deal. Depending on the situation that can be a serious penalty; its certainly not particularly likely to be helpful unless the weapon is sent far enough away that his superior movement prevents the person who disarmed him from following and striking while he's doing the retrieve.

In heroic level games, where characters also often have levels in a specific weapon, being disarmed can be a serious problem. One of the players in the current game is a superb fencer, with both levels and martial arts in his weapon of choice. On the few occasions where he has been disarmed, he's inevitably gotten the stuffing beaten out of him.

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

In heroic level games, where characters also often have levels in a specific weapon, being disarmed can be a serious problem. One of the players in the current game is a superb fencer, with both levels and martial arts in his weapon of choice. On the few occasions where he has been disarmed, he's inevitably gotten the stuffing beaten out of him.

cheers, Mark

"Always carry a spare!" :D

[Paragon]

In heroic level games, where characters also often have levels in a specific weapon, being disarmed can be a serious problem. One of the players in the current game is a superb fencer, with both levels and martial arts in his weapon of choice. On the few occasions where he has been disarmed, he's inevitably gotten the stuffing beaten out of him.

cheers, Mark

Yeah, that can easily be a fight-ender.

[Paragon]

"Always carry a spare!" :D

Combine it with Phil's suggestion above (the Hold and follow-through) and even that doesn't help as you get taken down before you can draw it.

[Vulcan]

In heroic level games, where characters also often have levels in a specific weapon, being disarmed can be a serious problem. One of the players in the current game is a superb fencer, with both levels and martial arts in his weapon of choice. On the few occasions where he has been disarmed, he's inevitably gotten the stuffing beaten out of him.

cheers, Mark

No argument there. My complaint was about ranged weapons being disarmed.

[PhilFleischmann]

Should Disarm be "improved" to funciton similar to Block -- i.e., it allows the Diarm-er to go first in the next Phase (presuming the Block-ee isn't of higher SPD)?
An idea worth considering. Though it only works if they both have the same next phase. Presumably, being disarmed is at least a bit of a "surprise" as you generally expect to continue attacking with your weapon. A moment of hesitation/looking around seems reasonable, as you have to not only see where your weapon flew off to, but also keep your primary focus on your opponent who is still attacking you!

So it might make sense for you to be able to pick up your weapon immediately, but at the cost of not paying attention to the other guy, which should be a DCV penalty (half?, 0?, -fixed number?)

[Vulcan]

Which isn't all that big of a limitation to a ranged guy fighting a martial-artist one-on-one.:(

In a group combat, though....:D

[SteveZilla]

An idea worth considering. Though it only works if they both have the same next phase. Presumably, being disarmed is at least a bit of a "surprise" as you generally expect to continue attacking with your weapon. A moment of hesitation/looking around seems reasonable, as you have to not only see where your weapon flew off to, but also keep your primary focus on your opponent who is still attacking you!

So it might make sense for you to be able to pick up your weapon immediately, but at the cost of not paying attention to the other guy, which should be a DCV penalty (half?, 0?, -fixed number?)

After disarming your opponent it might be a real good time to do a Presence Attack. :eg:

[Wishfullthinker]

Would it be possible to not directly base skills of of characteristics, but make it better make the cost different for those who have really high characteristics. For example...
the cost of a skill would be listed as (Dex 3/4). The Ability could tell you which skill it is linked too, the first cost would be the base cost of the base 11. The second cost is the cost per point of increase, but it is modified by the stat. For every 10 full points of the Stat it is decreased by one point, to a minimum of one point. This will allow super human scientists without making the non-super powered characters have super levels of skills. Of course this makes high level of skill for ordinary people really difficult to get.

[Vulcan]

Would it be possible to not directly base skills of of characteristics, but make it better make the cost different for those who have really high characteristics. For example...
the cost of a skill would be listed as (Dex 3/4). The Ability could tell you which skill it is linked too, the first cost would be the base cost of the base 11. The second cost is the cost per point of increase, but it is modified by the stat. For every 10 full points of the Stat it is decreased by one point, to a minimum of one point. This will allow super human scientists without making the non-super powered characters have super levels of skills. Of course this makes high level of skill for ordinary people really difficult to get.

Could you give me a few concrete examples? I'm not quite getting it, and I want to before I make any comments.

[Wishfullthinker]

ok, an example of my post earlier is...
Lets say you had a person with 15 Dex. Acrobatics with a cost of 3/4 and based on Dex would cost 3 points for the base and 3 point for each additional point afterwards(4 - 1 per full 10 points of Dex(1 in this case)).
A superhuman acrobat with a Dex of 30 would pay 3 for the base and 1 for each additional point ( 4-1 per full 10 points of Dex(3 in this case)).

Hope this clears it up a bit.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Would it be possible to not directly base skills of of characteristics, but make it better make the cost different for those who have really high characteristics.
I have seen games (e.g. Savage Worlds) where skills are cheap to buy up until they reach the level of their defining characteristics, after which they double. This seems doable in Hero - e.g., you can buy a number of levels equal to Char/5 at half cost. One problem would be what to do if you increase a characteristic beyond a new breakpoint. Would you then get points back for the skills you have bought at high levels?

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

One problem would be what to do if you increase a characteristic beyond a new breakpoint. Would you then get points back for the skills you have bought at high levels?

Yes, you would. The same thing already happens when you buy up your DEX -- you get points back from SPD since it is raised as well.

[Vulcan]

ok, an example of my post earlier is...
Lets say you had a person with 15 Dex. Acrobatics with a cost of 3/4 and based on Dex would cost 3 points for the base and 3 point for each additional point afterwards(4 - 1 per full 10 points of Dex(1 in this case)).
A superhuman acrobat with a Dex of 30 would pay 3 for the base and 1 for each additional point ( 4-1 per full 10 points of Dex(3 in this case)).

Hope this clears it up a bit.

A-ha! Now I get it!

What you're saying is that having a high Characteristic doesn't automatically make you good at a skill, it just makes it cheaper to be good at a skill!
.
.
.
.
After due deliberation, I believe I could live with this. I might even come to like it better than the existing system once I see it in action. But I imagine it will take a bit of testing to get the costs down right.

[SteveZilla]

A-ha! Now I get it!

What you're saying is that having a high Characteristic doesn't automatically make you good at a skill, it just makes it cheaper to be good at a skill!
.
.
.
.
After due deliberation, I believe I could live with this. I might even come to like it better than the existing system once I see it in action. But I imagine it will take a bit of testing to get the costs down right.

But we already have that. If by "good at a skill", one means (for example) having a 15- roll, then it costs those with higher stats less to achieve that than it does those with lower stats.

[Vulcan]

Yes, but I think the intention of Wishfullthinker is that the base level of the skill is the same for everyone. It's just cheaper for people with a high relavant characteristic to buy the skill up.

[SteveZilla]

I'm not convinced a sliding cost scale for skills is a good thing, as I see it as a complication to provide something that isn't really needed (IMO). I would argue that those of superior ability (i.e., a higher Characteristic) "blow by" the base level of skill roll in the process of learning the skill.

Or you can look at it as all base level skill purchases give a base skill roll, but the bonus for a high Characteristic is already figured in for you. I.e., 3 pts gets everybody a 9- roll, and all skill rolls also get a bonus to them equal to Char/5. If I have a 30 DEX and spend 3 pts on Acrobatics, I have a 15- with that. But unlike Secondary Stats being unaffected by Drains on Primary Stats, if my DEX gets Drained down to 10, my Acrobatics roll becomes 11-.

Though this potentially leaves the 2 pt for an 11- the odd-man-out, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.

[Vulcan]

But as an off-beat sugestion for changing an exisiting system, this one is actually pretty good. It reworks the skill system without making it feel like it's not HEROs anymore. (I presume it will still be 3d6 roll low.)

And I can see the benefit. Right now, every characteristic-based skill succeeds roughly 60-70% of the time (13-14<, I don't have my bell-curve memorized or handy). But say, a gunslinger with a high DEX defined as exceptional hand-eye coordination is not necessarily going to be that great of an acrobat, just because he took a gymnastics class once - i.e. if he didn't spend the points (training) to upgrade it. On the other hand, if he did decide to upgrade it, his high DEX would make it easier (cost fewer points).

Long and short, it decouples the characteristic from the roll, but not the skill.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate soloution, but think about it a bit. Fake a character build with it (using the 4/3 point cost and a starting roll of, say 11<, or try other base/level/roll combos). If we play around with it enough, it just might work better than you expect.http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/winkgrin.gif

[Klaus Mogensen]

I do see one big problem with the idea of having characteristics reduce skill cost rather than adding to skills:

What do you do with group skill levels that cover skills based on different characteristics? E.g. "Detective Skills": Stealth (Dex), Criminology, Deduction (INT), and Interrogation (PRE).

I guess you could base the cost on the lowest applicable characteristic, which would have the added advantage of having it be a single group skill rather than a common modifier to several skills. This will reduce granularity, though.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

This could be another way to build Skill enhancers.

having a Ranger Skill Enhancer could allow you to get the 4-8 basic Ranger Skills (as defined by GM) all reduced by a defining Ranger-esque stat chosen by GM (or at the greatest reduced price, again chosen by GM).

waddaya think?

[Netzilla]

Or you can look at it as all base level skill purchases give a base skill roll, but the bonus for a high Characteristic is already figured in for you. I.e., 3 pts gets everybody a 9- roll, and all skill rolls also get a bonus to them equal to Char/5. If I have a 30 DEX and spend 3 pts on Acrobatics, I have a 15- with that. But unlike Secondary Stats being unaffected by Drains on Primary Stats, if my DEX gets Drained down to 10, my Acrobatics roll becomes 11-.

This is the way I like to look at it as well. Personally, for 6th Edition, I'd like to see the skill formula expressed this way formally. This might help make the idea of starting with a 12-14 or less in a skill more palatable for those new to the system. Also, it would allow for an easy optional rule (in a side-bar or a later Ultimate book) for allowing skill rolls based on varying stats (planning a climb is Climbing + INT Bonus, climbing around a tricky overhang where you can't use your feet and have to rely purely on grip & upper body strength would be Climbing + STR, and so forth).

Though this potentially leaves the 2 pt for an 11- the odd-man-out, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.

I'd like to see those redone as buying an 8- or 7- + stat bonus for 2 points. Likewise, 1pt Familiarities would be a base 6- or 5- plus stat bonus.

[Netzilla]

But say, a gunslinger with a high DEX defined as exceptional hand-eye coordination is not necessarily going to be that great of an acrobat, just because he took a gymnastics class once - i.e. if he didn't spend the points (training) to upgrade it.

I'd call that level of training a 1pt Familiarity at best. Enough training to get an actual Stat Roll should represent months, if not years, of training. Perhaps that would make a useful benchmark table in the book:

Familiarity = ~1 semester of training (3-6 moths)
Base Roll = Associates Degree or a College Minor
Base Roll + 1 = Bachelor's Degree
Base Roll + 2 = Masters and so forth

[Vulcan]

I do see one big problem with the idea of having characteristics reduce skill cost rather than adding to skills:

What do you do with group skill levels that cover skills based on different characteristics? E.g. "Detective Skills": Stealth (Dex), Criminology, Deduction (INT), and Interrogation (PRE).

I guess you could base the cost on the lowest applicable characteristic, which would have the added advantage of having it be a single group skill rather than a common modifier to several skills. This will reduce granularity, though.

- Klaus

Hmmm, good point. We'll have to play with the numbers on that one. It wouldn't do for '+1 to 3 skills' to cost less than '+1 to this skill.'

Well. Assuming that 4/3 becomes the standard (a big assumption), then 1 to one skill = 3 points (then modified by the relevent characteristic). Which is 50% higher than what we currently pay at base. So...

+1 to 3 related skills = 4-5 pts.
+1 to all skills on a given characteristic = 7-8 points
+1 overall skill level = 12 points
+1 overall level = 15 points

Not sure I like that, though. But changing 4/3 to 4/2 means that 20 becomes the magic CHAR, much like 13/18 is now. On the other hand, 20 is expensive enough to make people think twice about doing it a lot (at least in heroic games).

Maybe leaving the two 'overall' levels at their current cost would be better, and make the '3 related skills' level 4 points, and the 'all characteristic skills' level 6 points.

Feel free to comment/criticize. Let's either make this work, or prove that it can't.

[Vulcan]

I'd call that level of training a 1pt Familiarity at best. Enough training to get an actual Stat Roll should represent months, if not years, of training. Perhaps that would make a useful benchmark table in the book:

Familiarity = ~1 semester of training (3-6 moths)
Base Roll = Associates Degree or a College Minor
Base Roll + 1 = Bachelor's Degree
Base Roll + 2 = Masters and so forth

A pretty good idea there.

[James Gillen]

This could be another way to build Skill enhancers.

having a Ranger Skill Enhancer could allow you to get the 4-8 basic Ranger Skills (as defined by GM) all reduced by a defining Ranger-esque stat chosen by GM (or at the greatest reduced price, again chosen by GM).

waddaya think?

RANGERESQUE 2!!! More woodsy than Rangeresque 1!!

[Markdoc]

This could be another way to build Skill enhancers.

having a Ranger Skill Enhancer could allow you to get the 4-8 basic Ranger Skills (as defined by GM) all reduced by a defining Ranger-esque stat chosen by GM (or at the greatest reduced price, again chosen by GM).

waddaya think?

I've been doing this for years (with the exception that it's not tied to a stat: the fact that you get a modiefier that applies to different stat based skills is balanced agianst regular modiefiers in that it applies to a smaller number of skills) and it works well: I call them "professional skill modifiers". The only caveats I use is that for this to apply, a profession has to be a well-defined group (you could take "soldier" for example, in a society with a military, but not "footloose wanderer", or "Shaman" but not "Slave") and that only skills almost all members of that group would be expected to have are eligible. Noe ofthis, "yes but it is possible he could have learned....". It doesn't have to be formal group, but it does have to be some group with an identifiable skill set.

Generally, as GM, I define what professional skill modiifiers are available in game, but I'm always wiling to consider suggestions.

cheers, Mark

[Wishfullthinker]

I'm not convinced a sliding cost scale for skills is a good thing, as I see it as a complication to provide something that isn't really needed (IMO). I would argue that those of superior ability (i.e., a higher Characteristic) "blow by" the base level of skill roll in the process of learning the skill.

Or you can look at it as all base level skill purchases give a base skill roll, but the bonus for a high Characteristic is already figured in for you. I.e., 3 pts gets everybody a 9- roll, and all skill rolls also get a bonus to them equal to Char/5. If I have a 30 DEX and spend 3 pts on Acrobatics, I have a 15- with that. But unlike Secondary Stats being unaffected by Drains on Primary Stats, if my DEX gets Drained down to 10, my Acrobatics roll becomes 11-.

Though this potentially leaves the 2 pt for an 11- the odd-man-out, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.

I didn't think of the effect of drains on DEX. That would be a bit of a disadvantage to this system. The main reason for doing this is so that a really intelligent person isn't super good at any int based skill they attempt to learn. They can become super good, but it isn't automatic. We could have Drains that effect all skill based on a perticular stat. Unfortunatly that would make it far more effective on high stat people than on lower stat people, which doesn't really make sense. hmmm, I will have to think on this a bit..

[Netzilla]

I've been doing this for years (with the exception that it's not tied to a stat: the fact that you get a modiefier that applies to different stat based skills is balanced agianst regular modiefiers in that it applies to a smaller number of skills) and it works well: I call them "professional skill modifiers". The only caveats I use is that for this to apply, a profession has to be a well-defined group (you could take "soldier" for example, in a society with a military, but not "footloose wanderer", or "Shaman" but not "Slave") and that only skills almost all members of that group would be expected to have are eligible. Noe ofthis, "yes but it is possible he could have learned....". It doesn't have to be formal group, but it does have to be some group with an identifiable skill set.

Generally, as GM, I define what professional skill modiifiers are available in game, but I'm always wiling to consider suggestions.

Basically sounds like the Expert Skill Enhancer from Dark Champions.

[SteveZilla]

I didn't think of the effect of drains on DEX. That would be a bit of a disadvantage to this system. The main reason for doing this is so that a really intelligent person isn't super good at any int based skill they attempt to learn. They can become super good, but it isn't automatic. We could have Drains that effect all skill based on a perticular stat. Unfortunatly that would make it far more effective on high stat people than on lower stat people, which doesn't really make sense. hmmm, I will have to think on this a bit..

If the Skill system were expanded a bit by allowing any skill that for 3 pts gets you 9+CHAR/5 to be bought at 2 pts for 10-, that could be your "a really intelligent person isn't super good at any int based skill they attempt to learn".

Once a person has put in a threshold level of effort to learn a skill (i.e., 3 pts), they get the benefit of the Characteristic related to that skill. Below that threshold, they haven't quite mastered the skill yet, and thus it's a flat roll for them (i.e., 1 or 2 pts).

[JmOz]

I'm going to resugest something I talked about eaarlier

NEW SKILL SYSTEM

Specific Characteristics are decoupled from skills, instead, depending on the task being attempted the GM will choose the most appropriate characteristic

So if I wanted to pick a lock it would be a dex skill roll, but if it was an electronic lock you would use Intelegence

Or acrobatics, if I was trying to remember who won the 1994 olympics in uneven bars it would be an INT roll, If I was trying to do a especialy gruling routine it might be CON, or if I was trying to slip through a laserbeam alarm system Dex, etc...

the costs would be
1 pt would be a -4
2 pt would be an -2
3 points would be +0
+2 points/+1 skill

[Vulcan]

It could work. But it would add a whole new level of complexity to the game.

[SteveZilla]

I'm going to resugest something I talked about earlier.

NEW SKILL SYSTEM

Specific Characteristics are decoupled from skills, instead, depending on the task being attempted the GM will choose the most appropriate characteristic.

So if I wanted to pick a lock it would be a dex skill roll, but if it was an electronic lock you would use Intelegence.

Or acrobatics, if I was trying to remember who won the 1994 olympics in uneven bars it would be an INT roll, If I was trying to do a especialy gruling routine it might be CON, or if I was trying to slip through a laserbeam alarm system Dex, etc...

I don't agree that this should be applicable to all skills.

Since there is no actual picking beign done to force open an electronic lock, Lockpicking is not the correct skill to use for this IMO. It's either Electronics or Security Systems (or both).

And I see no physical connection between learning how to throw one's body about on the uneven parallel bars, and learning part of Olympic History. IMO for an "Especially Grueling Routine", I'd just have the player make a CON roll to avoid minuses (due to fatigue) to the Acrobatics roll.

EDIT: For one thing, it turns every skill into some sort of a limited "Omni-Skill". Learn Breakfall, and you know not only how to get up fast and avoid damage from falling/knockback, but you also know *to an equal level* the past great practicioners of the skill, who invented it, where it came from, and/and/and...

By that reasoning, since I know HTML, I should be equally conversant with who created it, who has contributed to it, what the "greate webpages" are, and it's evolution. Of that, I only know HTML. Something's not right with me, I guess. ;)

[Netzilla]

Since there's unlikely to be anything close to a consensus on allowing skills to be based upon different stats for different situations, I believe that if it's introduced into 6th Edition, it should be done as an Optional rather than core rule. Personally, I like the idea since it would cut down on the 'laundry list' of Knowledge Skills that I see cluttering up all too many character sheets. In some genres it's appropriate for characters to be hyper-competent in multiple skill areas (pulp and Golden/Silver Age supers) while others probably should have more detailed breakdowns (hard sci-fi and gritty Dark Champs). Keeping it an optional rule makes it easier for GMs to incorporate it if they feel it's appropriate for their campaign.

Regardless of that issue, however, I'd still like to see the skill formula expressed as:

1pt Familiarity = 6-
2pt Hobby = 8-
3pt Trained = 9-
+2pts = +1
Stat Bonus = CHAR/5

[AnotherSkip]

By that reasoning, since I know HTML, I should be equally conversant with who created it, who has contributed to it, what the "greate webpages" are, and it's evolution. Of that, I only know HTML. Something's not right with me, I guess. ;)
HTML is a language not a skill :doi:, so no wonder you think you are broken from that aspect. Just because I know english doesn't mean I know the Bible.

[SteveZilla]

HTML is a language not a skill :doi:, so no wonder you think you are broken from that aspect. Just because I know English doesn't mean I know the Bible.

Yeah, but it's not a language you speak. :p It may have been too narrow an example.

How about Computer Programming (and lets be real, then only way you can program a computer is with a programming language -- like HTML)?

Or how about Oratory? Is it an INT skill when attempting to write the speech (or to remember past great speeches)? Is it PRE when giving the speech? If it's a long winded filibuster, would it be based on CON? Would being able to verbally barge though interruptions/distractions from the audience be an EGO-based use? What about attempting to project one's voice as far as possible -- STR (of lungs)? If it involves tongue-twisters like the Sheik's Slitted Sheets, would that be a DEX use?

And even if parts of this are somehow valid (NIMHO), how does one explain that each of these quite separate uses have the exact same level of expertise (i.e., the "various skills" are bought to the same magnitude*)?

*Magnitude means exclusive of the varying Characteristic contributions. A 3 pt Oratory (speech writing - INT) and a 3 pt Oratory (speech giving - PRE) are both of the same magnitude despite the different characteristics likely making the end-result skill rolls of different values.

[AnotherSkip]

Look, Im a roleplayer, to put a skill out there I really have for certain. I know alot about Rp'ng, it's history how to simulate certain things, big names like GG, SJ & SL, even during not specifically Roleplaying time I spend alot of time thinking about it. I can easily id alot of stuff even in areas outside of my expertise because of the various relationships, relating to my interests.
Persumably someone who had an interest in Oration would know alot of the good speeches (certainly Ich Bein Berliner, I have a Dream, Four score and seven years ago....) and would be able to id certain good characteritics of any oration he ran across, id the parts that make a good orator ect.... Now then why do politicians hire speechwriters? Because they can deliver them well (high Pre) but they cannot write them as well as their hiree's (high Int) assuming that everything else is the same (particularly points invested in the skill). Many people could do both but rather than have politicians buy alot of speechwriting skills and do both they can spend money to make someone else help them look better. a well written speech should give a bonus to the performer which isn't something that Hero reconciles well in the system. In addition rather than buying 12 points in related skills you could cover alot of the subskills with just the major buys reducing the need for long skill lists. the Suggestion for separation of characteristics is to increase character interaction and flexibility. 90% of the time the Oration ability will be Presence based, the rest is just for special situations wherein someone sees an opportunity that would make for interesting storytelling. A good example of a disagreement is Teamwork being Dex based, there are arguements for it being Int/Ego based in certain situatons etc... that is the thing we are trying to do with this suggestion make hero more flexible and customiseable.

and is my typing oration based upon Pre anyways or something else over the internet?

[Hugh Neilson]

How about Computer Programming (and lets be real, then only way you can program a computer is with a programming language -- like HTML)?

Or how about Oratory? Is it an INT skill when attempting to write the speech (or to remember past great speeches)? Is it PRE when giving the speech? If it's a long winded filibuster, would it be based on CON? Would being able to verbally barge though interruptions/distractions from the audience be an EGO-based use? What about attempting to project one's voice as far as possible -- STR (of lungs)? If it involves tongue-twisters like the Sheik's Slitted Sheets, would that be a DEX use?


The issue this illustrates to me is pretty simple. What should the skill do in the specific game? In most games, computer programming should denote the ability to program computers. Fine tuning it to software applications, ROM applications, Website applications, security applications/hacking and a half dozen other subskills is overkill. Further subdividing (Website applications to search engines, Java, Flash, HTML, etc.) is even more overkill.

Unless your game will focus around this area. In a game focused around these, a broader set of skills, and a more detailed task resolution system, would seem useful. In such a game, we might be able to reduce the combat system markedly, on the basis combat will neither frequent nor really crucial. So we ditch most combat rules, in favour of "Fisticuffs" and "Sniper" skills with a one roll resolution.

But we enhance the computer aspect with maneuvers, skill levels and "END", "STUN" and "BOD" analogs to make that task resolution more detailed and dramatic.

In a medical game, we beef up medical skills and resolution of disease and poison identification and treatment, and surgery. Law Court Hero? Same thing for law skills and arguing cases.

I DO NOT think this belongs in the core rules, or if it does, at best as a general comment. However, it may be useful in an "advanced Hero" book, with specific examples in specific genre, subgenre or setting books.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I've played several games where you can mix and match skills and characteristics depending on the situation, and it generally works well. It certainly cuts down on the number of skills.

Example: Thora is a skilled fencer. When she fences, she uses DEX. When she's trying to judge the skill of an opponent or the quality of a blade, she uses PER. If she wants to recall which fencing master developed a certain technique or recognize which school a fencer is from, based on the style and color of his outfit, she uses INT. When trying to teach a student, she uses PRE.

One problem that does crop up from time to time is that players try to persuade the GM that their best characteristic should always be used. Hence a lot of guidelines are generally needed.

Or how about Oratory? Is it an INT skill when attempting to write the speech (or to remember past great speeches)? Is it PRE when giving the speech? If it's a long winded filibuster, would it be based on CON? Would being able to verbally barge though interruptions/distractions from the audience be an EGO-based use? What about attempting to project one's voice as far as possible -- STR (of lungs)? If it involves tongue-twisters like the Sheik's Slitted Sheets, would that be a DEX use?
Oratory could be used with INT if the speaker is trying to use logical arguments, Spock-style. If the speaker is going for emotions, PRE would be used. In some cases, the lower of two characteristics may apply. If, as you say, the speaker has to address a large audience, the lower of PRE and CON may be applied.

And even if parts of this are somehow valid (NIMHO), how does one explain that each of these quite separate uses have the exact same level of expertise (i.e., the "various skills" are bought to the same magnitude*)?
Skills are already package deals of things that don't necessarily go hand in hand. Computer Programming e.g. includes both programming and hacking. Of course, if the mix-and-match system reduces the total number of skills, this will necessarily be more pronounced. One solution is to allow specializations within a skill, but then things start to get complicated again. It all depends on what balance we want between detail and simplicity.

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

Look, Im a roleplayer, to put a skill out there I really have for certain. I know alot about Rp'ng, it's history how to simulate certain things, big names like GG, SJ & SL, even during not specifically Roleplaying time I spend alot of time thinking about it. I can easily id alot of stuff even in areas outside of my expertise because of the various relationships, relating to my interests.

Two words: Complimentary Skills (used to be called Secondary Skills, IIRC). There's no need to "roll it all into one".

Knowledge of one thing IMO doesn't mean knowledge of something else as well. But Roleplaying (would that be a Professional Skill?) may not be the best example, as all the parts listed would IMO arguable fall under the same Characteristic - INT. The OP of this idea proposed a Skill System where a skill that IMO would clearly be (for example) DEX, should also grant identical levels of related skills that are based upon different Characteristics (like INT and CON, IIRC). Knowing how to Juggle does not mean I know who the "great jugglers in history" were. At all. Now, while learning to juggle I may have been exposed to that information, but that's not reason to make Juggling also work as KS: Great Jugglers. It is an explanation for buying the KS as well.

Persumably someone who had an interest in Oration would know alot of the good speeches (certainly Ich Bein Berliner, I have a Dream, Four score and seven years ago....) and would be able to id certain good characteritics of any oration he ran across, id the parts that make a good orator ect....

Complimentary Skills. Also, just because it's a skill doesn't preclude it's Special Effect being "He's just naturally good at it". Let's say person is a natural at Juggling (yet still has an average DEX). No formal training, he 's just that good. In which case, why would he also be naturally good at recalling information he was never exposed to, like the great jugglers of history?

Not all "Skills" are learned abilities in Hero System.

Now then why do politicians hire speechwriters? Because they can deliver them well (high Pre) but they cannot write them as well as their hiree's (high Int) assuming that everything else is the same (particularly points invested in the skill).

Hiring someone else to write a speech for you (Professional Skill: Speachwriter? Someone who specializes in that can get fairly high levels as it's a 3/1 skill. Hiring them to write your speech would be an example of Complimentary Skill Rolls (5ER, p44).

Many people could do both but rather than have politicians buy alot of speechwriting skills and do both they can spend money to make someone else help them look better.

It allows someone who spend all their points on being "Mr. Oratory" to make use of someone else's points that were spent on being "Mr. Speechwriter." Two specialists working together instead of one generalist.

a well written speech should give a bonus to the performer which isn't something that Hero reconciles well in the system.

Actually, it does give a bonus. It's called Complimentary Skills. :)

In addition rather than buying 12 points in related skills you could cover alot of the subskills with just the major buys reducing the need for long skill lists.

Why is there a problem with having (not needing) long skill lists? It shows a detailed, well-realized character concept IMO. And some of the uses discussed earlier for Complimentary Skills (like Oratory's past great speeches, etc.), an INT roll would suffice.

the Suggestion for separation of characteristics is to increase character interaction and flexibility.

It seems to me that if a rule increases character flexibility (for the same build and point totals), that works to *decrease* the need for character interaction.

90% of the time the Oration ability will be Presence based, the rest is just for special situations wherein someone sees an opportunity that would make for interesting storytelling.

Once you make something a Core Rule, you can't IMO just presume that all games will stick to this 90%/10% split. This rule introduces a level of "fuzziness" I would not be happy with, and IMO is not very "Hero-ish".

A good example of a disagreement is Teamwork being Dex based, there are arguements for it being Int/Ego based in certain situatons etc... that is the thing we are trying to do with this suggestion make hero more flexible and customiseable.

I hope you're not saying that the main force behind the proposal of this rule is based upon a single skill. If so, it's better to re-work that skill than the whole skill system.

But in Hero System, DEX is define (in part) as the character's reaction time. Not Ego or INT. Even Mental Combat happens on the character's DEX in their Phases. IIRC, a prior version of the rules had an option to allow High Ego characters to use EGO in place of DEX to determine actions for purely mental actions (like a Mental Power attack). I cannot find that anywhere in 5ER (even as an option), so I believe that has been dropped.

and is my typing oration based upon Pre anyways or something else over the internet?

It's Oratory (PER), but with two Complimentary Skill Rolls, INT (for spelling), and DEX (for nto mistpying teh lettres). But you can take Extra Time to get a bonus (i.e., you backspace and correct your mistakes before hitting "send" ;)).

[AnotherSkip]

It's Oratory (PER), but with two Complimentary Skill Rolls, INT (for spelling), and DEX (for nto mistpying teh lettres). But you can take Extra Time to get a bonus (i.e., you backspace and correct your mistakes before hitting "send" ;)).

Sooo.... no PRE? :D
or did you not take the exra time bonus?

Anyways how does having more options reduce player interactions? Seems to me that you are trying to decrease the number of reactions. This is merely an option for consideration. And any Gm worth his salt should realise that most if not all of the situations would go under the default, Teamwork isn't Str Based so no matter how much the Brick cries for it 99/100 times it won't be based on Str. I want players and GM's to think so if it allows a little bit more advantage to some characters that isn't a bad thing when some characters will certainly have to lose certain advantages they think should be guaranteed.

Isn't Int Processing Speed? the ability to take in and process information quickly? then Int is a part of the taking in and processing the information quickly enough to react usefully. thus Int can be a MAJOR factor in teamwork.

Besides it is another way to get characters to realise that there is more than min maxing on the characteristics especially when the characters may one day have to face a skill + Com roll to look good while doing an action.

[Talon]

Two things on Weapon Familiarity:

1) WF: Off-Hand should go away (or become a Talent).

2) Shields should require a Weapon Familiarity.

[SteveZilla]

Two things on Weapon Familiarity:

1) WF: Off-Hand should go away (or become a Talent).

2) Shields should require a Weapon Familiarity.

Would you have anything replace #1? Like perhaps simply buying CSLs w/ the Limitation "Only To Offset Off-Hand Penalty"?

Wouldn't #2 depend upon how shields are built? I've seen shields as either:
A. OIF: Combat Skill Levels (5 pt, DCV)
or
B. Armor: +X rPD/+X rED - Activation Roll(Y-; -?)

Neither of which have room (AFAICT) for a penalty due to unfamiliarity. Though perhaps if they were built with Requires Skill Roll, that might work.

[Talon]

Would you have anything replace #1? Like perhaps simply buying CSLs w/ the Limitation "Only To Offset Off-Hand Penalty"?

DCV levels "only when wielding two weapons" are a simple enough build.

Wouldn't #2 depend upon how shields are built?
...
Neither of which have room (AFAICT) for a penalty due to unfamiliarity. Though perhaps if they were built with Requires Skill Roll, that might work.

I'm thinking purely in terms of the fact that shields are as hard to learn as weapons, and in terms of the shields provided as equipment in 5ER. I could see an OCV penalty when wielding a shield with unfamiliarity, or a CV penalty which could be switched between OCV and DCV, but it seems to me that allowing anyone to pick up and wield a shield is not quite right.

[CTaylor]

Or, you could just retain the off-hand familiarity which does the same thing. I put shield and weapon as a common weapon familiarity in my fantasy campaign (for the primary area) but it would vary a lot campaign to campaign and location to location. Familiarities are a pretty flexible concept, what's rare in one area will be common in another so the suggestions they have listed in the book are just that: here's an idea of how you could do it.

What I would suggest, however, is what I've started doing: make the nonfamiliarity penalties lower for common and uncommon weapons. -3 is too harsh for common weapons. I lowered it to -1, then -2 for uncommon and -3 for rare or very unusual weapons for an area.

[Hugh Neilson]

What I would suggest, however, is what I've started doing: make the nonfamiliarity penalties lower for common and uncommon weapons. -3 is too harsh for common weapons. I lowered it to -1, then -2 for uncommon and -3 for rare or very unusual weapons for an area.

Why bother buying weapon familiarities? One PSL for penalties for nonproficiency gives me effective proficiency with all common weapons, and 2 moves it up to uncommon. Of course, 3 gives universal familiarity even under the current system.

[CTaylor]

Why bother buying weapon familiarities?

Why? Because a 2 point level only works on one weapon, but a 2 point weapon familiarity gives you the ability to use a large group of weapons with no penalty. A 3 point level only works on a small group of related attacks, and "common melee weapons" does not qualify for that skill level.

There's another house rule I should point out here that might help you see why this works: I rule that without a skill level or weapon familiarity, you cannot use any maneuvers with a weapon except strike, move through, and haymaker.

See, the fact is, it is just not that hard to use an unfamiliar simple and common weapon without experience in it. Weapons that are really complex and unfamiliar (three-section staff, flail) are hard to use properly, but something like a sword is pretty obvious. Sure, without the familiarity you can't do anything tricky, but you can use it with some ability.

[Netzilla]

Actually, a 3 point PSL works with all attacks (H5ER 67, 'Penalty Skill Level Table'). A 2 point level works with 3 maneuvers or a tight group (the example given is pistols), which would be equivalent to a 1pt WF.

[CTaylor]

Ah, ok Penalty Skill Levels: would you allow someone to buy penalty skill levels to negate weapon familiarity penalties? Would any GM? In any case, you're not gaining anything by paying 2 points to get what you get for 2 points in a common weapon group.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah, ok Penalty Skill Levels: would you allow someone to buy penalty skill levels to negate weapon familiarity penalties? Would any GM? In any case, you're not gaining anything by paying 2 points to get what you get for 2 points in a common weapon group.

I believe it's already in at least one standard writeup for the purpose of making someone "universally proficient". Penalty skill levels negate penalties. Nonproficiency imposes a penalty. We could make them much more expensive, I suppose - 8 point CSL, can't use for DCV (-1/2), only to offset penalties for non-proficient weapons (-2) maths out to 2 points, or 7 points to offset all NWP penalties.

Why bother buying weapon familiarities?

There's another house rule I should point out here that might help you see why this works: I rule that without a skill level or weapon familiarity, you cannot use any maneuvers with a weapon except strike, move through, and haymaker.

I like the idea that the WP is required in order to use additional maneuvers. It would also seem reasonable to require the WP to be able to maintain the weapon. This seems quite a bit more useful than simply imposing a penalty to OCV.

See, the fact is, it is just not that hard to use an unfamiliar simple and common weapon without experience in it. Weapons that are really complex and unfamiliar (three-section staff, flail) are hard to use properly, but something like a sword is pretty obvious. Sure, without the familiarity you can't do anything tricky, but you can use it with some ability.

I suggest the obviousness may be overstated. Give a fencing foil to someone who's never held one and see how well he does connecting with a skilled fencer, or even one with just a bit of experience.

The flat -3 penalty seems workable enough. If you really want to add realism, shouldn't proficiency with a flexible weapon like the flail or three-section staff offset some of the penalty for using a similar weapon (weapon similarity tree, anyone)?

[Lord Mhoram]

Ah, ok Penalty Skill Levels: would you allow someone to buy penalty skill levels to negate weapon familiarity penalties? Would any GM?

Although not rules legal (Steve said at one point - no you can't buy penalty levels to offset non prof penalty) - I've allowed it. The character was a weapons master and part of the concept was that he could use any weapon efficiently, even one he just picked up for the first time.

Didn't unbalance things, and fit the character.

[Hugh Neilson]

We could make them much more expensive, I suppose - 8 point CSL, can't use for DCV (-1/2), only to offset penalties for non-proficient weapons (-2) maths out to 2 points, or 7 points to offset all NWP penalties.

Although not rules legal (Steve said at one point - no you can't buy penalty levels to offset non prof penalty) - I've allowed it. The character was a weapons master and part of the concept was that he could use any weapon efficiently, even one he just picked up for the first time.

Didn't unbalance things, and fit the character.

And it's not a lot more expensive than the above approach, which should clearly be book legal. Even if capped out at -2 (using a nonproficient weapon isn't that common), 8 points is the most someone would need to pay to buy off all nonproficiency penalties.

These have a real diminishing return - a character who only buys WP: Swords tends not to use other weapons, at least given a choice. What's the huge advantage to being proficient with Axes instead?

It costs more to be familiar with uncommon/rare weapons, but they're less likely to be encountered in play (hence they are uncommon or rare), so you're actually paying more to get less. Perhaps the cost should be reworked so weapons that are more powerful cost more for proficiency.

[SteveZilla]

Actually, a 3 point PSL works with all attacks (H5ER 67, 'Penalty Skill Level Table'). A 2 point level works with 3 maneuvers or a tight group (the example given is pistols), which would be equivalent to a 1pt WF.

I think you're overstating PSLs a bit. All PSLs are for a specific negative OCV modifier with the attack the PSL is bought for. In the example with pistols, it is the Range Modifier that it applies to, no other modifier.

[SteveZilla]

Ah, ok Penalty Skill Levels: would you allow someone to buy penalty skill levels to negate weapon familiarity penalties? Would any GM? In any case, you're not gaining anything by paying 2 points to get what you get for 2 points in a common weapon group.

Actually, I wouldn't call the "Common Mêlée Weapons" group a tight group. Not when it includes two-handed weapons, pole-arms and unarmed combat all together. But even if a GM did call it a Tight group, and also did allow PSLs to be bought to offset the non-proficient penalty, it would take 6 pts (3 PSLs) to do this. As opposed to the 2 pts to become familiar with them.

Allowing PSLs to offset NWP penalty sets a bad precedent IMO. Why not spend 9 pts (three 3 pt PSLs)? Now you are "Proficient" with ALL weapons. Even ones that you've never even seen before.

Although not rules legal (Steve said at one point - no you can't buy penalty levels to offset non prof penalty) - I've allowed it. The character was a weapons master and part of the concept was that he could use any weapon efficiently, even one he just picked up for the first time.


Didn't unbalance things, and fit the character.

It may not have noticably unbalanced things, but I still believe such a power (as it isn't just a skill at this point IMO), should have been built on the 5 pt CSLs with appropriate Limitations. And who knows? It may come out cheaper as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, I wouldn't call the "Common Mêlée Weapons" group a tight group. Not when it includes two-handed weapons, pole-arms and unarmed combat all together. But even if a GM did call it a Tight group, and also did allow PSLs to be bought to offset the non-proficient penalty, it would take 6 pts (3 PSLs) to do this. As opposed to the 2 pts to become familiar with them.

Keep in mind the house rule quoted above where common weapons with which one is not proficient impose only a -1 OCV, rather than the current -3 standard.

Allowing PSLs to offset NWP penalty sets a bad precedent IMO. Why not spend 9 pts (three 3 pt PSLs)? Now you are "Proficient" with ALL weapons. Even ones that you've never even seen before.

Or I could buy +3 combat levels (24 AP), only with non-proficient weapons [this would be all but everyman as there's no point buying any proficiencies], cannot be used for DCV or to increase damage. That should cost no more than 8 points [a -2 limitation to levels otherwise usable for anything I want in all forms of combat], and offsets the penalty for non-proficient weapons.

I like CTaylor's idea of restricting the maneuvers which can be used if one is not proficient with a weapon.

[CTaylor]

It would also seem reasonable to require the WP to be able to maintain the weapon.

That is a good idea too: you can't restring your bow, your sword rusts, you don't now where the safety is or how to reload your gun, etc. You just don't understand the weapon well enough to work with it.

Give a fencing foil to someone who's never held one and see how well he does connecting with a skilled fencer, or even one with just a bit of experience.

I agree that someone who knows martial arts (or just skill levels) will do well against someone who just picked up a weapon. However, I never fenced in my life and when I broke the rules I beat the other fencer quite handily. He complained, but I pointed out that if you're trying to kill me I'm going to fight whatever way I have to.

The fact is, I am no swordsman but I can pick up a sword and hack into an enemy just fine. If he has familiarity or especially skill levels my opponent will almost certainly beat me but a -3 CV penalty makes it virtually impossible to hit, not just challenging. The base roll is 11- on attacks, the -3 makes that 8-, then you add the opponent's skill and it gets ridiculous.

[Netzilla]

I think you're overstating PSLs a bit. All PSLs are for a specific negative OCV modifier with the attack the PSL is bought for. In the example with pistols, it is the Range Modifier that it applies to, no other modifier.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't have to specify what penalty they applied to. I was just pointing out what the categories of 'attacks' were.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree that someone who knows martial arts (or just skill levels) will do well against someone who just picked up a weapon. However, I never fenced in my life and when I broke the rules I beat the other fencer quite handily. He complained, but I pointed out that if you're trying to kill me I'm going to fight whatever way I have to.

I think someone with proficiency should pretty much walk all over someone who lacks proficiency. I wonder whether your opponent would have the same problem if he weren't playing by the rules and used to doing so.

There must be some breakpoint between "non-proficient" and "possesses skill levels/martial arts" or there would be no point differentiating between a proficient and a non-proficient user.

The fact is, I am no swordsman but I can pick up a sword and hack into an enemy just fine. If he has familiarity or especially skill levels my opponent will almost certainly beat me but a -3 CV penalty makes it virtually impossible to hit, not just challenging. The base roll is 11- on attacks, the -3 makes that 8-, then you add the opponent's skill and it gets ridiculous.

Assuming a proficient opponent versus a non-proficient one, the proficient opponent has a 62.5% chance of hitting and the non-proficient one a 37.5% chance of hitting. I don't find that spread to be ridiculous. A one point penalty means 62.5% vs 50%, which seems much less significant to me. A small advantage in DEX puts the proficient and "never held a weapon before" characters on an even footing.

That's a reasonably cinematic result, in my view. However, I would not use weapon proficiencies at all if I wanted the need for experience with a weapon to be at that level on the "realistic/cinematic" charts.

[CTaylor]

I wonder whether your opponent would have the same problem if he weren't playing by the rules and used to doing so.

Oh he'd have cleaned house on me I'm sure. I just added that in because I thought it was funny, not to prove any sort of point.

There must be some breakpoint between "non-proficient" and "possesses skill levels/martial arts"

Sure. -1 OCV with common weapons, -2 with uncommon etc, plus the various effects mentioned before. There's a penalty, it's just too much in the current system.

Assuming a proficient opponent versus a non-proficient one, the proficient opponent has a 62.5% chance of hitting and the non-proficient one a 37.5% chance of hitting

Two characters, both with 3 CV (for the purposes of argument). One has proficiency with a weapon, the other lacks it. Under the current system, the non proficient character has a 0 OCV and will hit maybe one time out of ten. That's ludicrous, unless the weapon is very complex or difficult to use.

[SteveZilla]

The fact is, I am no swordsman but I can pick up a sword and hack into an enemy just fine. If he has familiarity or especially skill levels my opponent will almost certainly beat me but a -3 CV penalty makes it virtually impossible to hit, not just challenging. The base roll is 11- on attacks, the -3 makes that 8-, then you add the opponent's skill and it gets ridiculous.

Oranges and apples. Fencing is a sport and thus has rules that can be broken because the object isn't "to kill the other person any way possible". Let your opponent break the same rules you broke, and I doubt the outcome will be in your favor again.


Oh he'd have cleaned house on me I'm sure. I just added that in because I thought it was funny, not to prove any sort of point.

Ah. Okay. :)

Sure. -1 OCV with common weapons, -2 with uncommon etc, plus the various effects mentioned before. There's a penalty, it's just too much in the current system.

I don't think that -1 OCV is sufficient. Perhaps for "simple" weapons like clubs it is, but to use a polearm I'd imagine it'd be appropriate to have it be -2 at least (depending upon the polearm).

Two characters, both with 3 CV (for the purposes of argument). One has proficiency with a weapon, the other lacks it. Under the current system, the non proficient character has a 0 OCV and will hit maybe one time out of ten. That's ludicrous, unless the weapon is very complex or difficult to use.

Part of that is because of a lack of granularity with the 3d6 roll mechanic, and can't be fully avoided. A -2 penalty might be more in line. What are the odds of a 9- to hit? roughly 40% chance to hit? That's 4 out of 10. I might think that because one doesn't know how to really use a weapon, in addition to being less likely to score a hit, they also would do less damage on average. So I might consider making it a -2 OCV, and a -1 DC (but still obay the minimum damage the weapon could achieve).

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh he'd have cleaned house on me I'm sure. I just added that in because I thought it was funny, not to prove any sort of point.

So the proficient user would have cleaned house on the nonproficient user. If that's the reality, I suggest that should be the objective of the system. You were looking for realism, weren't you?

Sure. -1 OCV with common weapons, -2 with uncommon etc, plus the various effects mentioned before. There's a penalty, it's just too much in the current system.

[QUOTE=CTaylor;1653411]Two characters, both with 3 CV (for the purposes of argument). One has proficiency with a weapon, the other lacks it. Under the current system, the non proficient character has a 0 OCV and will hit maybe one time out of ten. That's ludicrous, unless the weapon is very complex or difficult to use.

A character with a 0 DCV swinging on one with a 3 DCV will hit on an 8 or less. An 8 or less results 25.93% of all rolls, quite a bit more than one time in ten. He has better than one chance in four of landing a successful hit.

Drop the penalty to -2 and we get 9 or less, which is successful 37.5% of the time, 3 times in 8.

Reduce it to -1, as you propose, and the 10 or less required will be rolled 50% of the time.

With no penalty, we get a 11-, the standard 62.5% chance of success.

Penalty -1: hit 80% as often as the proficient user.

Penalty -2: hit 60% as often as the proficient user.

Penalty -3: hit 41.5% as often as the proficient user.

There's no half as often. 41.5% does the trick nicely for me, thanks.

In any case, if we're chasing greater realism, the issue setting the penalty should not be how uncommon this specific weapon is, but how much it differs from weaponry the user is proficient in. A mongol horseman had never seen an English longbow, but being familiar with the horse bow, I think he'd be better suited to use it than he would a modern rifle.

There's also an aspect of ease of use. The gun was the "great equalizer" because it required far less skill to use (ie was much easier for a nonproficient user to wield) than other weapons of the day.

Is a -3 penalty across the board perfect? No, of course not. But it serves the purpose well enough without being overly complex.

1 combat level (8 points), only to offset nonproficiency penalties (-2) makes a cost of 3 points for proficiency with all common weapons plus reduced penalties on all other nonproficient weaponry, under your system. Sure, you can prohibit such a skill level purchase being made, just as you can prohibit penaty skill levels, but that is the bottom line to your proposal.

If you REALLY want to make weapon proficiencies important, perhaps they should reduce OCV by a proportion, such as nonproficiency means your OCV is halved. Suddenly, all those skill levels mean a lot less, including skill levels only useful to reduce the penalty from being nonproficient. A 3 CV normal with no weapon skills doesn't lose much, but he had little to lose anyway. A 17 DEX agile warrior with 4 combat skill levels, on the other hand, loses a lot by just grabbing the first weapon that comes to hand, rather than a weapon he is familiar with and can use his skills to full effect with.

Another approach would be to allow the nonproficient user full effect of DEX, restrict available maneuvers as you suggest, but preclude (or "just" halve) use of skill levels with a weapon he's unfamiliar with - his skills simply can't be brought to bear effectively because he doesn't understand the weapon.

[CTaylor]

I don't consider polearms common melee weapons. They are listed as uncommon (except spears) in the familiarity system in my campaign. That would be -2.

You can choose to do what you want differently in your campaign, but I consider -3 to be an outrageously excessive penalty and encourage Steve to adjust the rules accordingly in 6th - particularly if the idea of reducing the maneuvers available to you and maintainance of weapons is used as well.

[Lord Mhoram]

And it's not a lot more expensive than the above approach, which should clearly be book legal. Even if capped out at -2 (using a nonproficient weapon isn't that common), 8 points is the most someone would need to pay to buy off all nonproficiency penalties.
There are all the weird weapons that don't fit into group catagories - once you add those in, it gets really expensive - which is why we did what we did.


Allowing PSLs to offset NWP penalty sets a bad precedent IMO. Why not spend 9 pts (three 3 pt PSLs)? Now you are "Proficient" with ALL weapons. Even ones that you've never even seen before.

It may not have noticably unbalanced things, but I still believe such a power (as it isn't just a skill at this point IMO), should have been built on the 5 pt CSLs with appropriate Limitations. And who knows? It may come out cheaper as well.

That was actually what we did - 3 levels OCV with a -1/2 (only to offset weapon proficiency penalties). 10 pts.

[Chris Goodwin]

And it's not a lot more expensive than the above approach, which should clearly be book legal. Even if capped out at -2 (using a nonproficient weapon isn't that common), 8 points is the most someone would need to pay to buy off all nonproficiency penalties.

These have a real diminishing return - a character who only buys WP: Swords tends not to use other weapons, at least given a choice. What's the huge advantage to being proficient with Axes instead?

It costs more to be familiar with uncommon/rare weapons, but they're less likely to be encountered in play (hence they are uncommon or rare), so you're actually paying more to get less. Perhaps the cost should be reworked so weapons that are more powerful cost more for proficiency.

I'm wondering if the notion of "Weapon Familiarity" shouldn't go away, and instead you just buy PSLs to offset unfamiliarity penalties.

[Hugh Neilson]

There are all the weird weapons that don't fit into group catagories - once you add those in, it gets really expensive - which is why we did what we did.

That was actually what we did - 3 levels OCV with a -1/2 (only to offset weapon proficiency penalties). 10 pts.

My approach gets an 8 point cost - not a huge difference. I think -1/2 is a bit light considering what else could be done with 5 point levels, but my main reason for not using 5 point levels is the fact that, while there's a +1 DCV level, there's technically no +1 OCV level. I would still allow someone to buy a level with "all OCV" for 5 points, and that should be considered for 6e as well, but it's not currently by the book.

I'm wondering if the notion of "Weapon Familiarity" shouldn't go away, and instead you just buy PSLs to offset unfamiliarity penalties.

This depends on the structure you're looking for. I think a lot of games are looking for "you know how to use these weapons, but not those ones", which weapon familiarity handles nicely. If you add in the Maneuver Restriction, offsetting with PSL's becomes a non-issue.

Perhaps the better answer is to incorporate broader groups, perhaps as Talents rather than Skills, that permit a character to be considered familiar with all weapons (or at least all weapons suitable to the genre) for a cost deemed appropriate. This might be similar to the Universal Translator talent.

[SteveZilla]

I'm wondering if the notion of "Weapon Familiarity" shouldn't go away, and instead you just buy PSLs to offset unfamiliarity penalties.

While it would cost character more, it would also allow for greater granularity in just how familiar is familiar. "I know swords fully (3 PSLs for them), but am only moderately familiar with bows (2 PSLs for them), and I've practiced with flails a couple of times (1 PSL for them)."

My approach gets an 8 point cost - not a huge difference. I think -1/2 is a bit light considering what else could be done with 5 point levels, but my main reason for not using 5 point levels is the fact that, while there's a +1 DCV level, there's technically no +1 OCV level. I would still allow someone to buy a level with "all OCV" for 5 points, and that should be considered for 6e as well, but it's not currently by the book.

Defense is always cheaper than Offense. ;)

This depends on the structure you're looking for. I think a lot of games are looking for "you know how to use these weapons, but not those ones", which weapon familiarity handles nicely.

True, it's a simple, Black/White system.

If you add in the Maneuver Restriction, offsetting with PSL's becomes a non-issue.

Doesn't this presume that most if not all combatants who use weapons whill have purchased maneuvers to use with thier weapons?

Perhaps the better answer is to incorporate broader groups, perhaps as Talents rather than Skills, that permit a character to be considered familiar with all weapons (or at least all weapons suitable to the genre) for a cost deemed appropriate. This might be similar to the Universal Translator talent.

Except that one can learn a new skill/weapon. It's not really possible to learn most if not all Talents (which is why they can only be bought at character creation, IIRC). Though there are exceptions for the "Skill-Like Talents". I'd rather not blur the line between Talents and Skills further by putting proficiencies into the Talents group.

IMO a semi-realistic grouping of weapons would be based upon two things: The amount of training needed to become "proficient", and the manner in which the weapon is used. IIRC, D&D 3.0/3.5 generally uses these, with groups of Simple, Martial, and Exotic.

Which could be broken down further, as the Martial weapon of a Longsword is used differently than the Martial weapon of the Light Flail, which is VERY different from the Martial weapon of a Heavy Lance.

[SteveZilla]

There are all the weird weapons that don't fit into group catagories - once you add those in, it gets really expensive - which is why we did what we did.


That was actually what we did - 3 levels OCV with a -1/2 (only to offset weapon proficiency penalties). 10 pts.

Was it 3 CSLs or 3 PSLs? I submit that if it was PSLs and the character never bought any Weapon Familiarities, then PSLs are not valid, as they would always be useful to the character -- the sole exeption being if the character were for some reason fighting unarmed.

Why wouldn't just about every character take this deal? It's a huge bargain. "For the price of a single Overall Skill Level, you too can be proficient in all weapons, no matter the make, manufacture, or time period!" :)

I'd be willing to bet that Captain Kirk suffered a -3 OCV when he shot the Gorn with the improvised cannon. :D

[Hugh Neilson]

Doesn't this presume that most if not all combatants who use weapons whill have purchased maneuvers to use with their weapons?

The "not available" maneuvers would presumably include some of those which are general maneuvers. Ctaylor's house rule was that a nonproficient user could use only strike, move through, and haymaker. He could not, then, use Block or Move By, for example.

Except that one can learn a new skill/weapon. It's not really possible to learn most if not all Talents (which is why they can only be bought at character creation, IIRC). Though there are exceptions for the "Skill-Like Talents". I'd rather not blur the line between Talents and Skills further by putting proficiencies into the Talents group.

I'm not proposing proficiencies become talents. I'm only considering the "universally proficient" talent which would be "proficient with every weapon he encounters" as a talent. And a lot of talents could be purchased after character creation/learned.

Was it 3 CSLs or 3 PSLs? I submit that if it was PSLs and the character never bought any Weapon Familiarities, then PSLs are not valid, as they would always be useful to the character -- the sole exeption being if the character were for some reason fighting unarmed.

What if he's a spellcaster? And there are everyman proficiencies, so even someone with no familiarities can use a club.

I'd be willing to bet that Captain Kirk suffered a -3 OCV when he shot the Gorn with the improvised cannon. :D

He seemed to have no difficulty with how the weapon operated. The cannon didn't look like your DEX would help a lot in aiming it, though, and it did seem quite bulky. At the end of the day, he did hit - he couldn't have been suffering too badly.

[Vulcan]

Maybe, but a Gorn's DEX is a negligible value just barely over zero...:D

Seriously, that was probably more like an area-effect cone, RR/RP. It was an enormous shotgun more than anything else.

As far as 'universal proficiency' vs standard weapon groups...

The main problem I potentially see with a 'universal proficiency' is "What happens when a really unusual weapon shows up - say, a gun in a fantasy setting. Does the guy with 'universal proficiency' get to use it at no penaltes?

Something to think about, anyway.

[JmOz]

Maybe, but a Gorn's DEX is a negligible value just barely over zero...:D

Seriously, that was probably more like an area-effect cone, RR/RP. It was an enormous shotgun more than anything else.

As far as 'universal proficiency' vs standard weapon groups...

The main problem I potentially see with a 'universal proficiency' is "What happens when a really unusual weapon shows up - say, a gun in a fantasy setting. Does the guy with 'universal proficiency' get to use it at no penaltes?

Something to think about, anyway.

A valid point, In my game, where I do allow a 9 point talent called weaponmaster (grants proficincy in all weapons) the understood rule is that if you encounter a new weapon you have to practice some with it before the proficincy kicks in (Length of time is dependent on the GM, sometimes for common weapons it is only 2-3 combat rounds if you pick it up in mid fight (To figure the weight of it and such) for exotic weapons in can take a while longer

The reason I allow it is simple:

1) In a heroic game 9 points is expensive, for that same 9 points he could have purchased +3 CSL weapon of choice and 90% of the time be better off

2) In a superheroic game the ability is going to be rarely used,

[SteveZilla]

The "not available" maneuvers would presumably include some of those which are general maneuvers. Ctaylor's house rule was that a nonproficient user could use only strike, move through, and haymaker. He could not, then, use Block or Move By, for example.

Oh, okay. If it applies to some of the general maneuvers, then I could see that.

I'm not proposing proficiencies become talents. I'm only considering the "universally proficient" talent which would be "proficient with every weapon he encounters" as a talent. And a lot of talents could be purchased after character creation/learned.

Ah, I understand. In my experience being able to buy an innate Talent after creation depends upon the GM. I don't know of many that would let a character just suddenly develop Eidetic Memory. ;)

What if he's a spellcaster? And there are everyman proficiencies, so even someone with no familiarities can use a club.

I did forget about Clubs being free as well as Unarmed. I think the reasoning behind Barehanded and Clubs being everyman WF is primarily because they are so simple there is no need to "figure out" how to use them.

I don't follow what "being a spellcaster" would have to do with this -- in a game system where, barring the GM enforcing stereotypes, a spellcaster could be just as good with weapons as some other non-spellcaster.

The thing is, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the complaint of "It's too expensive!" to justify building something in a non-RaW way. I don't mean to offend, but that is how I feel. :) While I can agree that buying something like every single Language can be expensive, never being stymied by a language barrier shouldn't be cheap IMO. Similar logic applies to never being stymied by being stuck with a weapon one knows nothing about.

How about: Three 8 pt CSLs: All Combat - Only To Offset The Non-Weapon Familiarity Penalty(-1*). 24 Active Points, 12 Real Points.

*Limited Power: -1 = Power looses about half its overall effectiveness. IMO it shouldn't go past -1.5 in any game, and not past -1 in a game that is weapon-heavy (like Fantasy Hero usually is).

It's only 3 pts more to do it this way. Though IMO the other benefits from Weapon Familiarities wouldn't carry over -- like knowing how to clean and maintain the weapon. Though it is possible to take a KS to cover that aspect as well...

[CTaylor]

I think a Universal Proficiency talent is a great idea, it could be based on penalty skill levels sufficient to negate the modifiers for the worst familiarity penalty plus a few points to cover the other little bits that we brought up here. Say, 10 points.

[James Gillen]

I think a Universal Proficiency talent is a great idea, it could be based on penalty skill levels sufficient to negate the modifiers for the worst familiarity penalty plus a few points to cover the other little bits that we brought up here. Say, 10 points.

We've already got Universals for everything else in Ultimate Skill.

jg

[IndianaJoe3]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any reason to; I think the current Skill list is a pretty good one overall. But as always I’m willing to entertain motions from the floor. ;)
Shrinking the skill list would be bad. However, rules for simplifying (as well as expanding) the skills list might be useful for some games.

[JmOz]

Shrinking the skill list would be bad. However, rules for simplifying (as well as expanding) the skills list might be useful for some games.

I was thinking along the same lines the other day

In Pulp all you need is SCIENCE, or THIEF, or what have you, while in Modern Hero (aka Dark Champions) you might need some very specific Skills (Like Electronic lockpicking)

[Xotl]

1) I'd like to see Bribery and Seduction folded into Persuasion, as both are just situational examples of Persuasion - Persuasion with cash and Persuasion with sex (appeal). Add a couple of lines to Persuasion stating how PRE, COM, Streetwise, Bureaucratics, or Area Knowledges can affect the roll, depending on what you're trying to accomplish, and you lose no functionality. The other two really serve no purpose being on their own that Persuasion can't already cover. Hell, the entire Bribery entry just covers how Bribery works (which people know already), a comment that it should be roleplayed, and the statement that Persuasion and Seduction are complementary. I also think it's worth noting that a logical extension of the current setup, Persuasion with threats/force (Intimidation), is missing, and I don't think the loss is felt.

As a bonus, this solves the Seduction naming issue.

2) I'd argue that Oratory is an incredibly specific skill for the otherwise rather generic nature of the skill list, and one of rare use in almost all campaigns to boot. Even in ancient/fantasy setting, relatively few people possessed oratory skills, and I doubt there's many political games being run. I'd remove it, at best reinserting into Fantasy Hero where it's at least conceivable that public speaking might have some small use for non-politicians (though in a game where the default setting is all Mechanics are the same, Computer Operators know the hardware and can also program, and System Ops covers a zillion different devices, Oratory's removal and replacement with Persuasion or KS/PS: Oratory on the very rare occasions it's required seems just fine to me).

3) I'd also like to see the option of having Science, Knowledge, and Professional skills starting at a flat 11- removed, for the sake of streamlining, as I'm not aware it really serves any purpose to have this random exception there.

4) I'd prefer to see Analyze as a universal rule given at the start of the skill section, one available to all characters, rather than an ability to be bought. It's simpler and (it seems to me) more logical to say that as long as you have any skill at a level above Familiarity that you are able to recognize proficiency (and a lack thereof) with it in others, rather than having to buy a separate skill to do so.

5) Lastly, I'd really like to see Skill Levels, Combat Skill Levels, and Penalty Skill Levels receive a bit more of a combined treatment, separate from the rest of the skill list. They're technically skills, but have a much broader usage than that, impacting so much of the rest of the system as well as one another, and are constantly referenced in a way the rest of the skill list isn't.

The rest of the skill chart I think is a good compromise between accuracy and playability.

[Vulcan]

Oratory may be rarely used, but it has a very broad basis of useage. Any character may be called on to make a speech, just from the point of view that the PC's are usually pretty influential on the game world.

Politicians are the obvious choice for Oratory. But any leader can make good use of it. A teacher with Oratory will be a more sucessful one. And a policeman or fireman with Oratory is more effective at getting groups to move in the right direction in an emergency.

And in a superhero genere, any hero might be called on to make a speech. Oratory can be the difference between getting applauded or embarressed.

Analyze, I kind of agree with your points. Most mechanical functions of Analyze can be handled just as easily with the Power skill. On the other hand, there are two places where Analyze is not so easily pushed aside.

First is Analyze combat style. With no skill (short of KS/SS) about combat styles, it covers the ability to watch someone's movements and get an idea of how good they are.

A second concerns the lack of a 'sense motive' type skill in HEROs. It's hard to make a character who's 'just good at telling when someone's not telling the whole truth' without using Analyze (Sense Motive), or resorting to powers like 'Telepathy, only to detect lying' or 'Detect Lie'.

[Xotl]

Oratory may be rarely used, but it has a very broad basis of useage. Any character may be called on to make a speech, just from the point of view that the PC's are usually pretty influential on the game world.

Politicians are the obvious choice for Oratory. But any leader can make good use of it. A teacher with Oratory will be a more sucessful one. And a policeman or fireman with Oratory is more effective at getting groups to move in the right direction in an emergency.

And in a superhero genere, any hero might be called on to make a speech. Oratory can be the difference between getting applauded or embarressed.

I don't dispute that it can come into play, only that it comes into play often enough to match the broad utility of most of the other Hero skills; I can pick any skill on any game's list and come up with occasions where it is useful, after all. It just seems to me that most games would feature it quite rarely, and that it has neither the common usage of Mechanics or Stealth, nor the specific game mechanic advantages of something like Breakfall. Most games don't feature leaders (or anyone that needs to give a speech more than once in a blue moon), and oratory could just as easily be covered by roleplaying, Persuasion, or a KS/PS. I think it's just likely to be one of the most underused skills there, for a good reason, and thus is ripe for cutting. I've always felt it to be an oddity in the skill list, like if there was a Carpentry skill (much more common and useful than Oratory in pretty much any setting, yet not at all needed).

YMMV, of course.

Analyze, I kind of agree with your points. Most mechanical functions of Analyze can be handled just as easily with the Power skill. On the other hand, there are two places where Analyze is not so easily pushed aside.

First is Analyze combat style. With no skill (short of KS/SS) about combat styles, it covers the ability to watch someone's movements and get an idea of how good they are.

That's a good point, though with such a specific use as the only stalling point for myself I'd love to able to come up with a way around it so Analyze could still be granted as the freebee I think it should be. In the end, the ability to remove Analyze from the skill list is merely a bonus to me: my main goal is to have its function available to all so that one pro can recognize another automatically, as I feel they should be able to. You see that fact again and again in real life - if I do something long enough, I can tell how good someone is at it, and when someone doesn't know what they're talking about. It comes with the skill, not with additional training just to spot that.

A second concerns the lack of a 'sense motive' type skill in HEROs. It's hard to make a character who's 'just good at telling when someone's not telling the whole truth' without using Analyze (Sense Motive), or resorting to powers like 'Telepathy, only to detect lying' or 'Detect Lie'.

I think this should be handled as a mixture of Perception, with a bonus if you have a good Persuasion skill (being good at convincing people likely makes you good at noticing a dissembler), and roleplaying. I've never liked Sense Motive because players tend to use it as a fantasy lie detector, and because it seems like an unnecessary mechanic that gets in the way of roleplaying.

[SteveZilla]

That's a good point, though with such a specific use as the only stalling point for myself I'd love to able to come up with a way around it so Analyze could still be granted as the freebee I think it should be. In the end, the ability to remove Analyze from the skill list is merely a bonus to me: my main goal is to have its function available to all so that one pro can recognize another automatically, as I feel they should be able to. You see that fact again and again in real life - if I do something long enough, I can tell how good someone is at it, and when someone doesn't know what they're talking about. It comes with the skill, not with additional training just to spot that.

Why not just use Deduction (which everybody has) with a Complimentary Skill Roll of the Skill in question?

[Xotl]

Why not just use Deduction (which everybody has) with a Complimentary Skill Roll of the Skill in question?

I hadn't noticed before that Deduction was an Everyman skill. And as martial arts mastery requires a KS in the style in question, a complementary skill is always well in hand for anyone qualified to make an analytical judgement, while PS: Soldier makes a good complement for modern troops. Good idea :)