Skills Issues

[The Main Man]

I think the idea is that just having CHAR/4 creates fewer breakpoints than having both CHAR/5 and CHAR/3.

I get it when it is put that way but I don't see why it is bad because it turns attack rolls into Agility Skills.

However, I'm in favor of streamlining, including making combat skill levels more like regular skills. If we also can get finer granularity by e.g. change how skill rolls are made, that would be great.

- Klaus

Well, there's Chris Goodwin's idea of rolling high by replacing the base number with a 3d6 roll + Skill Bonus which basically turns it into an alternative D20.

[The Main Man]

In this aspect, the d20 mechanic is a good one -- they use a single thing for task and combat resolution, so there are fewer rules to remember and the game is easier to learn.

Yes, the problem with D20 was never the resolution mechanic.

The problem was and continues to be its rigidity and having an impossible curtain to peek behind.

That is until M&M came along. :)

As the saying goes: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[Vulcan]

Having skills determined at CHAR/5 and CV by CHAR/3 may have more break points, but it seems that the majority of characters all wind up with just a few common DEX scores.

First, there is DEX 23. This is, in many ways, the perfect DEX. You get the CV break for 8 and the skill roll break for 14< at the same time. So for super-genere games, this is the standard DEX. For more agile characters, 26 is favored for the 9 CV, but few go as far as 28 - except the MA and speedsters who are aiming for 29.

In the Heroic Genre, we have DEX 18. Sure, it's one point over the CV break for 6, but many players consider that three points a cheap price to pay for getting not only one of the highest base CV's (only a 20 DEX/ CV 7 beats it), but also the highest base DEX skill roll. So for many heroic characters, 18 DEX is favored.

DEX 14 gets some favor from lower DEX characters, though. With the Skill break at 13, once again another 3 points gives you boost to a base 5 CV - not too shabby for a 'low-DEX' character.

So as things stand, I would bet the majority of characters in heroic settings have an 18 or 14, with superheroes concentrating on 23 or 26.

If we change the formula to CHAR/4 for everything, then the breaks become 11, 15, 19, 23, and 27 (or 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26 if we allow round-ups).

If we change the formula to CHAR/3, the breaks are 11, 14, 17, and 20 for the heroic level. For Superheros nothing really changes since things stay pretty much at 23 and 26

Hmm. The exact numbers change a little, but the number of breaks stays pretty much the same.

<sigh> That's not the outcome I was hoping for when I proposed it. I guess I should have done this analysis first.

[SteveZilla]

Having skills determined at CHAR/5 and CV by CHAR/3 may have more break points, but it seems that the majority of characters all wind up with just a few common DEX scores.

First, there is DEX 23. This is, in many ways, the perfect DEX. You get the CV break for 8 and the skill roll break for 14< at the same time. So for super-genere games, this is the standard DEX. For more agile characters, 26 is favored for the 9 CV, but few go as far as 28 - except the MA and speedsters who are aiming for 29.

In the Heroic Genre, we have DEX 18. Sure, it's one point over the CV break for 6, but many players consider that three points a cheap price to pay for getting not only one of the highest base CV's (only a 20 DEX/ CV 7 beats it), but also the highest base DEX skill roll. So for many heroic characters, 18 DEX is favored.

DEX 14 gets some favor from lower DEX characters, though. With the Skill break at 13, once again another 3 points gives you boost to a base 5 CV - not too shabby for a 'low-DEX' character.

So as things stand, I would bet the majority of characters in heroic settings have an 18 or 14, with superheroes concentrating on 23 or 26.

If we change the formula to CHAR/4 for everything, then the breaks become 11, 15, 19, 23, and 27 (or 10, 14, 18, 22, and 26 if we allow round-ups).

If we change the formula to CHAR/3, the breaks are 11, 14, 17, and 20 for the heroic level. For Superheros nothing really changes since things stay pretty much at 23 and 26

Hmm. The exact numbers change a little, but the number of breaks stays pretty much the same.

<sigh> That's not the outcome I was hoping for when I proposed it. I guess I should have done this analysis first.

Changing the formulas for Skills and/or CV might not affect the low-end very much, but when you're talking about stats in the 60's (I'm thinking mainly about Power Skill for STR here), then it can make a significant difference.

The only way I see to smoothly unify CV and Skill Rolls without causing a big swing at the extremes involves changing the dice roll from 3d6 to something else less "peaked" and with a bigger spread.

[Klaus Mogensen]

The only way I see to smoothly unify CV and Skill Rolls without causing a big swing at the extremes involves changing the dice roll from 3d6 to something else less "peaked" and with a bigger spread.
Agreed. I favor a 2d6+d20 roll, which has about twice the spread of 3d6, allowing the use of CHAR/2 for skill and combat bonuses.

The 'pure' d6 suggestions I have seen have all been a bit clunky. These days, all roleplayers have a d20, so the purity argument has lost its weight compared to back in 1981, when special dice were hard to find.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Agreed. I favor a 2d6+d20 roll, which has about twice the spread of 3d6, allowing the use of CHAR/2 for skill and combat bonuses.

The 'pure' d6 suggestions I have seen have all been a bit clunky. These days, all roleplayers have a d20, so the purity argument has lost its weight compared to back in 1981, when special dice were hard to find.

To me, this markedly changes the theory behind task resolution. This choice is a tradeoff between the influence of random chance and the influence of skill and ability. The 3d6 structure makes skill and ability the primary determinant of success or failure, where the d20 markedly increases randomness of the result.

In Hero, +4 means a huge amount - moving from 10- (a 50/50 chance) to 14- (a 90% chance) is substantial.

In d20, that +4 is far less meaningful - moving from a 50% chance to a 70% chance is far less significant.

[Chris Goodwin]

Having skills determined at CHAR/5 and CV by CHAR/3 may have more break points, but it seems that the majority of characters all wind up with just a few common DEX scores.

If we standardize them on one formula (for the sake of argument, CHAR/5), then instead of "breakpoints" we end up effectively rescaling the Characteristics. For instance, you end up with, instead of DEX 13, 18, 23, etc., with DEX +3, +4, +5. The pluses refer to the CV and Skill values. You can, if you want, keep the "main" values (which would still be useful for, e.g. initiative for DEX, Stunning for CON, and so on) but primarily what you're concerned with is the bonus.

[Talon]

If we standardize them on one formula (for the sake of argument, CHAR/5), then instead of "breakpoints" we end up effectively rescaling the Characteristics. For instance, you end up with, instead of DEX 13, 18, 23, etc., with DEX +3, +4, +5. The pluses refer to the CV and Skill values. You can, if you want, keep the "main" values (which would still be useful for, e.g. initiative for DEX, Stunning for CON, and so on) but primarily what you're concerned with is the bonus.

This is currently the case for INT, and doesn't look likely to change. (INT is even worse because there are rarely any circumstances where raw INT matters.)

I am not thrilled about reducing breakpoints, but the idea of making the game simpler is a good one.

[Klaus Mogensen]

[Regarding replacing 3d6 with 2d6+d20] In Hero, +4 means a huge amount - moving from 10- (a 50/50 chance) to 14- (a 90% chance) is substantial.

In d20, that +4 is far less meaningful - moving from a 50% chance to a 70% chance is far less significant.
Very true, but the idea is to increase the granularity so that +4 in 3d6 corresponds to +8 in 2d6+d20. This would also be about an increase from 50/50 to 90/10. Basically, you would get twice as many steps in the roll, but also twice as many steps in the Characteristic bonuses.

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

Agreed. I favor a 2d6+d20 roll, which has about twice the spread of 3d6, allowing the use of CHAR/2 for skill and combat bonuses.

The 'pure' d6 suggestions I have seen have all been a bit clunky. These days, all roleplayers have a d20, so the purity argument has lost its weight compared to back in 1981, when special dice were hard to find.

- Klaus

Something about mixing two different kinds of dice in a single roll just doesn't feel right to me. If one is going to go "outside" of the d6 to include any other dice in the system, it doesn't have to be the d20. a 2d12 (d12s are just as ubiquitous as d20s) produces a 2-24 range that fits well with recalculating Skill Rolls to 11 + STAT / 3. Which makes the formulation nearly the same as Combat.

And one could say "Well, a d6 has 6 faces, and a d12 as twice as many, so it's sorta like a double d6." This (admittedly very loose) connection between d6 and d12 isn't present with d8s, d10s, or d20s.

This chart shows that using 2d12 and a recalculation of Skill Rolls produces virtually identical odds (actual chance of success) for the same amount of a Characteristic as with the 3d6 system, and allows a tie-in with CVs and Combat:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29237&stc=1&d=1219628101

[Netzilla]

I'm running a bit behind, so for context: This is directed at the general sentiment that basing both CV & Skill Rolls on CHAR/4 rather than CHAR/3 & CHAR/5 (respectively) decreases the number of breakpoints in the system:

Basing Skill & CV on CHAR/4 only decreasses the number of breakpoings for DEX. For all other stats, the number of breakpoints will increase. The loss of breakpoints on DEX is mittigated, in my mind, by its importance in Initiative (where every point counts). On the other hand, the gain is mittigated by CON & Body's roll in damage resistance (where every point counts) and the fact that no skills are based on those stats.

The stats that are most significantly affected by this change are: STR, DEX, INT, EGO, PRE and COM. With the Imparing and Disabling wounds, the effect on CON becomes significant due to the use of CON Rolls to resist those effects. Of the 6 or 7 stats impacted, only one is a negative impact.

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the new breakpoints. Note that I did not include the effects of STUN & END but I did include the other Figured Stats and things like Lift & Leaping.


STR, CON & PRE
C/5: 3*, 5, 8*, 10, 13*, 15, 18*, 20, 23*, 25, 28* 11 breakpoints
C/4: 2*, 5, 6*, 8, 10*, 13, 14*, 15, 18*, 20, 22*, 23, 25, 26*, 28, 30* 16 breakpoints

DEX
C/5 & C/3: 2, 3*, 5, 8*, 10, 11, 13*, 14, 17, 18*, 20, 23*, 26, 28*, 29, 30 16 breakpoints
C/4: 2*, 6*, 10*, 14*, 18*, 20, 22*, 26*, 30* 10 breakpoints

All other stats
C/5: 3*, 8*, 13*, 18*, 23*, 28* 6 breakpoints
C/4: 2*, 6*, 10*, 14*, 18*, 22*, 26*, 30* 8 breakpoints

* - Breakpoints w/ Skills

[AnotherSkip]

I wouldn't allow Analyze to work as a complement to Find Weakness for that very reason.

But it is, By the Book.

[The Main Man]

This is currently the case for INT, and doesn't look likely to change. (INT is even worse because there are rarely any circumstances where raw INT matters.)

I am not thrilled about reducing breakpoints, but the idea of making the game simpler is a good one.

I do think that INT needs to gain more usage because all that it really does is increase Intellect Skills and PER, both of which are easily simulated separately with Enhanced Perception and Skill Levels.

There's also the common example of a "smart" but not "perceptive" character which INT does not properly simulate (defaulting to one side of its function or the other).

[Klaus Mogensen]

I do think that INT needs to gain more usage because all that it really does is increase Intellect Skills and PER, both of which are easily simulated separately with Enhanced Perception and Skill Levels.
I think that if Perception remains a part of INT, it also makes sense to base ranged attacks on INT.
[/quote]There's also the common example of a "smart" but not "perceptive" character which INT does not properly simulate (defaulting to one side of its function or the other).[/quote]
That's not really a problem - you can buy levels in INT skills rather than buying more INT. Right now, there's no cost incentive in doing this, but that's perhaps something that should change.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

I think that if Perception remains a part of INT, it also makes sense to base ranged attacks on INT.
There's also the common example of a "smart" but not "perceptive" character which INT does not properly simulate (defaulting to one side of its function or the other).[/quote]
That's not really a problem - you can buy levels in INT skills rather than buying more INT. Right now, there's no cost incentive in doing this, but that's perhaps something that should change.

- Klaus[/quote]

That's what I mean: Why have a stat for Intelligence when it's better simulated by superior Skill Rolls?

[AnotherSkip]

5 point Skill levels Allready Apply to PER also, so.. unless you limit the Skill levels you are back in same boat.

[Netzilla]

The book's description of INT refers to it the "ability to take in and process information quickly." and "...processing and reacting to information...". In a sense, INT is more of a mental reaction speed and agility than it is raw processing power. This strikes me, then, as being the mental equivalent to DEX. As a result, one way to improve the value of INT would be to base Mental Combat Value (formerly ECV) on INT rather than EGO. After all, in my opinion, it seems that the ability to quickly sort out information (INT) is more valuable to targeting then raw willpower (EGO).

This would require re-pricing both INT and EGO based upon whether CHAR/3 or some other formula is used for combat values.

[Talon]

5 point Skill levels Allready Apply to PER also, so.. unless you limit the Skill levels you are back in same boat.

Where does it say this?

[David Blue]

The book's description of INT refers to it the "ability to take in and process information quickly." and "...processing and reacting to information...". In a sense, INT is more of a mental reaction speed and agility than it is raw processing power. This strikes me, then, as being the mental equivalent to DEX. As a result, one way to improve the value of INT would be to base Mental Combat Value (formerly ECV) on INT rather than EGO. After all, in my opinion, it seems that the ability to quickly sort out information (INT) is more valuable to targeting then raw willpower (EGO).

This would require re-pricing both INT and EGO based upon whether CHAR/3 or some other formula is used for combat values.
If INT only gave offensive mental combat value, and the cost of EGO was reduced to 1 for 1 and it still gave defensive mental combat value, along with everything else it does now, I think that would be about right.

It would be unusual to have two different characteristics affecting a combat value, one for the attacker, one for the defender, but I think it works both ways.

Heroes like Conan should have mighty willpower, and be making tough EGO rolls and fighting off mental attacks with gritted teeth and trust in Crom. As it is, that isn't so: EGO costs too much. But at 1 for 1 it wouldn't.

And attackers like Professor X would also be getting good value. The system would press them, or at least invite them, to spend points on being smart - but why not? I think that's in line with common expectations in fiction, and the points spent would be well invested.

[Chris Goodwin]

If INT only gave offensive mental combat value, and the cost of EGO was reduced to 1 for 1 and it still gave defensive mental combat value, along with everything else it does now, I think that would be about right.

I think Presence would probably work better for offensive mental combat. You could then make all Presence Attacks work against EGO, and then Presence becomes your "offensive" stat, for all "offensive" uses (Interaction Skills, Presence Attacks, Mental Powers) and Ego for all defensive uses (it's your strength of will, your resistance).

That also opens the door to separate stats for OCV and DCV.

[Chris Goodwin]

Consolidating Skill and Combat

Based on the Cotu! and Not So Crunchy Hero threads, plus some thoughts I've been having lately, I came up with this notion.

Combat Value and skill bonus are based on one value (probably CHA/5 for reasonable compatibility and because that value is used in other places, such as for STR Damage)

Each stat has its Characteristic Modifier (MOD), which is equal to CHA/5. (Optionally there's a 1/2MOD column, which is equal to CHA/10.)

Stat Block would look thusly (stat block for a sample character; Primary Characteristics only):


CHA VAL MOD xPTS COST
STR 10 2 1 0
DEX 18 4 3 24
CON 15 3 2 10
BODY 13 3 2 6
INT 23 5 1 13
EGO 20 4 2 20
PRE 25 5 1 15


If Figured Characteristics are kept, they should all be based on VAL and MOD (or, if used, 1/2MOD). If that means reworking point costs, so be it. (STUN could be BODY + SMOD + CMOD, for example; SPD would be 1/2DMOD+1, where SMOD = STR MOD, CMOD = CON MOD, DMOD = DEX MOD)

Skill Rolls and Familiarity:

The basic resolution mechanic: Roll 3d6. 10+ is success.

If you ever have to "make a Characteristic Roll" you roll 3d6 plus your MOD for the appropriate Characteristic.

For Skill usage:

If you have no Skill at all: no MOD.
If you have Familiarity: +MOD
Buying the full Skill is 3 points for MOD+2, +2 points per +1.

These values add to either the 3d6 roll (for the attacker or the active participant in a Skill vs. Skill contest) or 10 (for the defender or other participant).

Skills are denoted in +'s. So, instead of Computer Programming 14-, you'd have Computer Programming +6. Always include the appropriate MOD when you're buying the Skill (I don't like the idea of skill bonuses that add to different Characteristics depending on the situation.)

This applies whether you're the attacker or defender; if you're the attacker, this adds to your 3d6 roll; if you're the defender, it adds to 10. ("Attacker" and "defender" also apply to noncombat Skill use; it's whether you're the "doer" or the "do-ee".)

Using, for instance, Stealth would be a straight Stealth roll vs. 10 + the target's Perception MOD.

If there's some question about who's doing what to whom, it defaults to the player rolling. There are occasional exceptions; for example, if the GM is secretly rolling an NPC's Stealth vs. a PC, he'd roll.

New Skill:

Combat: Gives you the basic combat ability plus ability to use one weapon, and means you're effectively Familiar rather than Unskilled in other weapons that fall under the same Combat Skill. Additional weapons are bought as Weapon Familiarities, as normal.

Combat Skill Types:

Defensive
Hand-to-hand (maybe, maybe not)
Melee
Missile
Small Arms
Energy Small Arms
???

Basically, Combat Skill plus the various Weapon Familiarities act exactly analogously to Combat Driver or Combat Pilot and the various Transport Familiarities. Each Combat Skill type is a separate 3-point Skill, +1 per 2 points.

Everyone is assumed to have Familiarity with Defensive Combat. Defensive Combat is the basic "get out of the way of the attack" Skill and doesn't provide any weapon usage. Yes, this can be bought up. It can be used in conjunction with Dodge, which just grants a straight +3 to your Defensive MOD.

Skill Levels would pretty much work the way they do now. Probably costs 1 1/2 points for +1 to one weapon type (such as Pistols), 2 points for +1 to Combat Skill of one type.

Luck and Unluck: These are straight bonuses. These apply instead of Skill or Characteristic MOD, in situations in which luck is a factor. Luck is a bonus, and Unluck is a penalty. You don't get to apply Skill Levels, Extra Time bonuses, etc. to Luck. If you have both Luck and Unluck, you roll 3d6 + Luck >= 10 + Unluck. It's possible to buy both Luck and Unluck as situational. If you're using a Skill, you don't get Luck. (Possible exception for Gambling, but possibly not, because if you're a skilled poker player, you're not relying on Luck.)

(Crossposted to Combat Issues)

[PhilFleischmann]

[quote=PhilFleischmann;1672445]And why is there any need to do that?[quote]

Imagine a game where you don't have to learn Combat and Skills separately but in the same place.
Yeah, so? What play benefit do I get in exchange for reduced granularity?

[Talon]

More people to play the game with.

[The Main Man]

Where does it say this?

I hesitated to response in favor of looking it up first.

The answer: it doesn't; he's thinking of Overall Skill Levels which is a far cry from 5-Point Skill Levels since they apply to everything*.







*Everything that the GM allows of course.

[The Main Man]

More people to play the game with.

:thumbup:

[The Main Man]

Consolidating Skill and Combat

Based on the Cotu! and Not So Crunchy Hero threads, plus some thoughts I've been having lately, I came up with this notion.

Combat Value and skill bonus are based on one value (probably CHA/5 for reasonable compatibility and because that value is used in other places, such as for STR Damage)

Each stat has its Characteristic Modifier (MOD), which is equal to CHA/5. (Optionally there's a 1/2MOD column, which is equal to CHA/10.)

Stat Block would look thusly (stat block for a sample character; Primary Characteristics only):


CHA VAL MOD xPTS COST
STR 10 2 1 0
DEX 18 4 3 24
CON 15 3 2 10
BODY 13 3 2 6
INT 23 5 1 13
EGO 20 4 2 20
PRE 25 5 1 15


If Figured Characteristics are kept, they should all be based on VAL and MOD (or, if used, 1/2MOD). If that means reworking point costs, so be it. (STUN could be BODY + SMOD + CMOD, for example; SPD would be 1/2DMOD+1, where SMOD = STR MOD, CMOD = CON MOD, DMOD = DEX MOD)

Skill Rolls and Familiarity:

The basic resolution mechanic: Roll 3d6. 10+ is success.

If you ever have to "make a Characteristic Roll" you roll 3d6 plus your MOD for the appropriate Characteristic.

For Skill usage:

If you have no Skill at all: no MOD.
If you have Familiarity: +MOD
Buying the full Skill is 3 points for MOD+2, +2 points per +1.

These values add to either the 3d6 roll (for the attacker or the active participant in a Skill vs. Skill contest) or 10 (for the defender or other participant).

Skills are denoted in +'s. So, instead of Computer Programming 14-, you'd have Computer Programming +6. Always include the appropriate MOD when you're buying the Skill (I don't like the idea of skill bonuses that add to different Characteristics depending on the situation.)

This applies whether you're the attacker or defender; if you're the attacker, this adds to your 3d6 roll; if you're the defender, it adds to 10. ("Attacker" and "defender" also apply to noncombat Skill use; it's whether you're the "doer" or the "do-ee".)

Using, for instance, Stealth would be a straight Stealth roll vs. 10 + the target's Perception MOD.

If there's some question about who's doing what to whom, it defaults to the player rolling. There are occasional exceptions; for example, if the GM is secretly rolling an NPC's Stealth vs. a PC, he'd roll.

New Skill:

Combat: Gives you the basic combat ability plus ability to use one weapon, and means you're effectively Familiar rather than Unskilled in other weapons that fall under the same Combat Skill. Additional weapons are bought as Weapon Familiarities, as normal.

Combat Skill Types:

Defensive
Hand-to-hand (maybe, maybe not)
Melee
Missile
Small Arms
Energy Small Arms
???

Basically, Combat Skill plus the various Weapon Familiarities act exactly analogously to Combat Driver or Combat Pilot and the various Transport Familiarities. Each Combat Skill type is a separate 3-point Skill, +1 per 2 points.

Everyone is assumed to have Familiarity with Defensive Combat. Defensive Combat is the basic "get out of the way of the attack" Skill and doesn't provide any weapon usage. Yes, this can be bought up. It can be used in conjunction with Dodge, which just grants a straight +3 to your Defensive MOD.

Skill Levels would pretty much work the way they do now. Probably costs 1 1/2 points for +1 to one weapon type (such as Pistols), 2 points for +1 to Combat Skill of one type.

Luck and Unluck: These are straight bonuses. These apply instead of Skill or Characteristic MOD, in situations in which luck is a factor. Luck is a bonus, and Unluck is a penalty. You don't get to apply Skill Levels, Extra Time bonuses, etc. to Luck. If you have both Luck and Unluck, you roll 3d6 + Luck >= 10 + Unluck. It's possible to buy both Luck and Unluck as situational. If you're using a Skill, you don't get Luck. (Possible exception for Gambling, but possibly not, because if you're a skilled poker player, you're not relying on Luck.)

(Crossposted to Combat Issues)
I think that these are some pretty neat ideas.

Maybe the "Combat" skill could act like the Power skill for Martial Arts purposes kind of like the WWE Know Your Role maneuver system.

Yes, I did just refer to a wrestling RPG for possible insight. :drink:

[Vulcan]

But it is, By the Book.

Only if the GM allows it, since under Analyze it says "The GM can expand Analyze to allow a character to analyze and evaluate just about anything... "

Sure, later it says "including Find Weakness rolls". But it's clearly stated as an option the GM can use, not a standard rule of the game.

So as a GM I stand by my right to disallow it, even without invoking "Princilple #2 for interpreting and applying the HERO System Rules: Any and all rules are subject to change."

[PhilFleischmann]

More people to play the game with.
Was this intended to reply to my last post? How in the world does basing CV on DEX/5 cause more people to play? That's a truly ridiculous claim.

[Talon]

Was this intended to reply to my last post? How in the world does basing CV on DEX/5 cause more people to play? That's a truly ridiculous claim.

Think about it, it will come to you.

[AnotherSkip]

Where does it say this?

Steve Long Says so,

IIRC FH..

though someone else needs to find the reference.

[AnotherSkip]

Page 80, Fantasy Hero

And people claim I Don't know the rules

[AnotherSkip]

Only if the GM allows it, since under Analyze it says "The GM can expand Analyze to allow a character to analyze and evaluate just about anything... "

Sure, later it says "including Find Weakness rolls". But it's clearly stated as an option the GM can use, not a standard rule of the game.

So as a GM I stand by my right to disallow it, even without invoking "Princilple #2 for interpreting and applying the HERO System Rules: Any and all rules are subject to change."

Although I agree with Rule # 2, however you have your paragraphs backwards, first it allows It as a complientray to Find weakness rolls (at 1 to 1 none the less!) THEN the last paragraph allows expansion to things other than combat.

[The Main Man]

Page 80, Fantasy Hero

And people claim I Don't know the rules

Well you may and you may not.

I do not have FH on hand but the point is that the ruling does not appear in the core book, assuming that you are talking at least about 5eR in which only Overall Skill Levels may do so.

[SteveZilla]

Page 80, Fantasy Hero

And people claim I Don't know the rules

Also, because it's in the FAQ (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=Hero+System+Fifth+Edition%2C+ Revised&section=&keywords=INT-based+Rolls&dateString=) without a mention of any supplement, I belive that it qualifies as a "core" rule.

[schir1964]

Also, because it's in the FAQ (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=Hero+System+Fifth+Edition%2C+ Revised&section=&keywords=INT-based+Rolls&dateString=) without a mention of any supplement, I believe that it qualifies as a "core" rule.
Yes, that would seem to imply that correct intent of the original rules were to be interpreted that way. But some reject the FAQs being viewed in this fashion.

BTW: I hope you don't mind me correcting your typos. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Talon]

I guess I would say, Steve, don't make this an official rule in 6E!

5 point Skill Levels are virtually the equivalent of INT now, so there's no reason for INT to exist...

[Klaus Mogensen]

Just thought of something troublesome. I don't have the book with me right now, but correct me if I'm wrong:

You can get a skill level in a single attack power for 2 points.
You can use two skill levels to increase DC by 1.
That's +1 DC - at 0 END cost - for just 4 points. And you can trade damage for accuracy and vice versa.
I can't remember if skill boost to damage is limited to 2 x base, but even so, there's no good reason not to buy enough skill levels to achieve that.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

Just thought of something troublesome. I don't have the book with me right now, but correct me if I'm wrong:

You can get a skill level in a single attack power for 2 points.
You can use two skill levels to increase DC by 1.
That's +1 DC - at 0 END cost - for just 4 points. And you can trade damage for accuracy and vice versa.
I can't remember if skill boost to damage is limited to 2 x base, but even so, there's no good reason not to buy enough skill levels to achieve that.

- Klaus

You can't use 2 point skill levels for anything other than +1 OCV. So you have to go to 3 point skill levels. That's still 1 DC, 0 END for 6 points, though. And yes, skill levels can't affect base damage, so you are still limited to 2x base. Given that you can get 1 DC, 0 END that does increase your base damage for 7.5, I haven't found this terribly unbalancing, but it's still a damn good deal, since as you note, you can also use those DCs for +2 OCV/DCV with a tight group of attacks.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Most skill levels are +X Stat, Only for Y purpose. Once characteristics settle down, the pricing of levels should be reviewed in this regard.

2 point CSL's are +1 OCV with one attack only, and should be based on the cost of OCV overall.

3 and up are mini-multipowers and should be looked at in the same light. What is the cost of +1 OCV or +1 DCV, or +1/2 DC with this attack? Maybe the ratio of skill level to DC needs to change as a consequence. An energy blast can sacrifice 1 DC to add +1 OCV. I need two skill levels for +1 DC or +2 OCV. A 18d6 EB has 18 DC's or 12 DC's and +6 OCV. For 12 points, I can have +6 OCV with my EB. For 18, I can have +6 OCV, +6 DCV or +3 DC. For 30, I can have +6 OCV or +6 DC. Is that balanced costing?

[The Main Man]

Also, because it's in the FAQ (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=Hero+System+Fifth+Edition%2C+ Revised&section=&keywords=INT-based+Rolls&dateString=) without a mention of any supplement, I belive that it qualifies as a "core" rule.

I stand corrected, granted I have never looked at the FAQ:think:

[The Main Man]

I guess I would say, Steve, don't make this an official rule in 6E!

5 point Skill Levels are virtually the equivalent of INT now, so there's no reason for INT to exist...
As a result of that ruling, I agree that you are absolutely right.

[AnotherSkip]

I guess I would say, Steve, don't make this an official rule in 6E!

5 point Skill Levels are virtually the equivalent of INT now, so there's no reason for INT to exist...

Good! Now we can Kill off INT and Leave COM

:sneaky:

[SteveZilla]

I guess I would say, Steve, don't make this an official rule in 6E!

5 point Skill Levels are virtually the equivalent of INT now, so there's no reason for INT to exist...

Close, but not quite what I'd call "virtually". A 5 pt Skill Level for INT skills can only raise a single skill (or PER roll) at the same time. 5 pts of INT raises *all* of them.

[AnotherSkip]

Good Job SZ!

Skills repersent focus on tasks and Characteristics repersent general improvement, alot of the time it may not appear to matter, but there are definately times that Char kick but!

[GamePhil]

Was this intended to reply to my last post? How in the world does basing CV on DEX/5 cause more people to play?

I imagine that the theory is that, by having skills and combat work by the same formula, you simplify the game and therefore make it easier for new players to join in. Thus, more players.

Not sure I buy it, but that appears to be the theory.

[Southern Cross]

Then why not have skills based on the formula 8+ (CHAR/3),instead of the formula 9+(CHAR/5)?

[Hugh Neilson]

Then why not have skills based on the formula 8+ (CHAR/3),instead of the formula 9+(CHAR/5)?

This would provide more granularity (ie more breakpoints). It means skill rolls go up much faster, hitting 15- at a stat of 20 and 18- at the upper end of the "Legendary" range. Superheroic stats would create huge skill rolls. None of these would be bad things, in my opinion.

It would mean an increased need to reduce the cost of skill levels, though. In fact, even +1 to a skill roll would need to be revisited - why pay +2 for a +1 bonus to your Persuasion skill when 3 points gets you +3 PRE, including that +1 bonus to all your interaction skills. Even if you hit NCM (assuming it stays), paying 6 for +3 PRE makes a lot of sense if you have a number of interaction skills (2 points for the other benefits if you have 2, it's free if you have 3, and you're paying more to raise more than 3 individually).

[Markdoc]

Then why not have skills based on the formula 8+ (CHAR/3),instead of the formula 9+(CHAR/5)?

That does seem like the simplest approach. You'd end up with 5 breakpoints in the "normal human" range (8, 11, 14, 17, and 20). Combine with "ties go to the higher characteristic" in skill vs skill contests, just as DEX defines who goes first when people of equal SPD are "tied" and we'd get a system with slightly increased granularity, where every point contributed something and no loss of simplicity.

At the superheroic level, people would get astronomically high skill rolls - but that's OK, from my viewpoint - they're routinely asked to do things that would make normals blench - run along powerlines under fire, hack into alien computers, build flying armoured battlesuits in a cave with hand tools, etc. It's in-genre for superheroes to perform skill feats no normal could replicate and also further differentiates heroic from superheroic.

Combine that with an simplified skill system and drop the distinction between FAMs and other skills:
1 point gets you the basic 8- roll, with no CHA modifier
+2 gets you a CHA-based skill roll

and a simplified level structure:
2 points for a +1 for a single use (+1 with KS: Early Estruscan Pottery, +1 OCV with Rapier, etc)
3 points for a +1 with a tight group (+1 with History KS:'s, +1 with AK:'s, +1 CV with Swords, etc)
5 points for a broad group (+1 with a particular CHA-based skill set, +1 with all military skills, +1 with all science skills, +1 with HTH combat, etc)
8 points for +1 with a very broad group (all non-combat skills, all combat skills)
10 points for +1 with any skill

and we would have retained all our current flexibility, increased granulaity slightly and simplified the system to boot. The only thing we'd lose would be the 2 point 11- "non-typed" skill and frankly, that's a pretty small loss.

cheers, Mark

[GamePhil]

Combine that with an simplified skill system and drop the distinction between FAMs and other skills:
1 point gets you the basic 8- roll, with no CHA modifier
+2 gets you a CHA-based skill roll


I'd like to add +1 gets you an 11- roll.


and a simplified level structure:
2 points for a +1 for a single use (+1 with KS: Early Estruscan Pottery, +1 OCV with Rapier, etc)
3 points for a +1 with a tight group (+1 with History KS:'s, +1 with AK:'s, +1 CV with Swords, etc)
5 points for a broad group (+1 with a particular CHA-based skill set, +1 with all military skills, +1 with all science skills, +1 with HTH combat, etc)
8 points for +1 with a very broad group (all non-combat skills, all combat skills)
10 points for +1 with any skill


I would have thought 1 point for a single skill, because otherwise you are costing more with the levels than with the characteristics. Not sure what the rest of the cost structure would be.

[Markdoc]

I'd like to add +1 gets you an 11- roll.

I'd thought about that, but it doesn't fit well with the skill levels approach. That's why I commented that we lose this non-CHA based roll.

I would have thought 1 point for a single skill, because otherwise you are costing more with the levels than with the characteristics. Not sure what the rest of the cost structure would be.

You can only add characteristics once, though, so it doesn't have to be the same price as a level. The goal was to simplify things so the structure is essentially Base roll (8-) -> CHA roll -> CHA roll + levels.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

My proposal is to use skill bonuses of CHAR/2½, rounded down (i.e., +2 bonus per +5 CHAR). This gives the same breakpoints as for damage (+½d6 per 2½ STR) and PRE attacks.

I.e., all characteristics will have breakpoints at 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, etc., whether looking for skill bonuses or added damage.

If we want to still have basic skills of 13- at CHAR 18, the formula becomes 6 + CHAR/2½. The corresponding roll-high version becomes 3d6 + CHAR/2½ >= 15 for basic rolls.

The question then becomes: Should Characteristic costs be increased to compensate for the greater bonuses, or should skill level costs be reduced instead? In both cases, we want levels for "All INT skills" or "All PRE skills" to be a bit less expensive than buying up INT or PRE, since the Characteristics provide more (e.g. PER Rolls and PRE attacks).

First we look at retaining skill level costs (e.g. 5 for +1 with "All INT skills"). With Characteristic costs of 2, +1 with skills and more costs ~ 5 points, so we need to go to costs of 3 for INT and PRE (~ 7½ for +1). For INT, that's +2½ to get +1 PER and +1 INT Roll; for PRE it's +2½ to get +½d6 PRE attack and +2½ PRE Defense. That seems reasonable enough. I propose splitting DEX into two 3-point Characteristics, one (DEX) providing OCV, initiative and some skills, the other (AGI) providing DCV and some skills. If kept as one Characteristic, it should cost at least 5, even with SPD decoupled.

The above is balanced, but will lead to point inflation. Let's examine the other alternative: Leaving characteristic costs more or less as they are and instead adjusting skill costs:

+2½ INT and PRE costs 2½ and provide +1 to all INT/PRE skills; i.e., skill levels that provide +1 to all INT/PRE skills should cost 2 points. The current 3-point levels should then be recosted at 1½, and getting +1 to a single skill/attack should cost 1. DEX can be kept at 2 (decoupled from SPD) or be split into two 1-point characteristics. Then, assuming decoupling, all characteristics, except COM, can become 1-point characteristics. This leads to point deflation, even with decoupled characteristics.

Just one thing to address: now, two 3-point levels can be used to add +1d6 damage, and many manuvers seem to trade 1 DC for +/-2 OCV or DCV. Since 1d6 with 0 END costs 7½ points, a fair exchange rate seems to be 5 skill levels (at 1½ each) per +1 DC. Given that skill costs are halved or more, this retains something like the current balance in points. However, it will require rewriting a lot of maneuvers (e.g. spreading EBs and the Move Through trade-off between OCV/DCV and damage).

To summarize the second solution:

All Primary Characteristics cost 1
Figureds are decoupled
COM either changed to a talent or recosted at 1 with some added functionality
+1 at a single skill/manuver costs 1
+1 with 3 skills/maneuvers or a tight group costs 1½
+1 with a broad group of skills/maneuvers cost 2
Basic exchange rate between OCV/DCV and damage is 1 DC ~ 5 OCV or DCV.
Note that the calculations will be almost the same if CHAR/3 is used instead of CHAR/2½ - the difference isn't great.

- Klaus

[Talon]

I made a post on CHAR / 3 and associated characteristic costs issues here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1676995#post1676995). I like the idea, as it increases granularity and makes the game simpler.

[Vulcan]

If you're going to make skills figure from CHA/3, the base number should be lowered. I think when this got started, 6 was the proposed base.

There's a chart back a few pages comparing 6+CHA/3, 8+CHA/4, and 9+CHA/5. It might be worth revisiting that chart with different base numbers and figuring cumulative 'chance of sucess' for them.

[Talon]

I suggested 7 + CHAR / 3, as it takes the current Characteristic Roll range (11-13) and expands it by one in either direction (10-14).

[Hugh Neilson]

I suggested 7 + CHAR / 3, as it takes the current Characteristic Roll range (11-13) and expands it by one in either direction (10-14).

I like that approach, as it also makes the roll for a base 8 - 10 stat 10-, which is 50% success/failure.

[Netzilla]

If you're going to make skills figure from CHA/3, the base number should be lowered. I think when this got started, 6 was the proposed base.

There's a chart back a few pages comparing 6+CHA/3, 8+CHA/4, and 9+CHA/5. It might be worth revisiting that chart with different base numbers and figuring cumulative 'chance of sucess' for them.

Not terribly difficult. Just a few minutes of spreadsheet fiddling:


Char 9+C/5 9+C/4 9+C/3 8+C/5 8+C/4 8+C/3 7+C/5 7+C/4 7+C/3 6+C/5 6+C/4 6+C/3 5+C/5 5+C/4 5+C/3
0 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5
1 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5
2 9 10 10 8 9 9 7 8 8 6 7 7 5 6 6
3 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6
4 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6
5 10 10 11 9 9 10 8 8 9 7 7 8 6 6 7
6 10 11 11 9 10 10 8 9 9 7 8 8 6 7 7
7 10 11 11 9 10 10 8 9 9 7 8 8 6 7 7
8 11 11 12 10 10 11 9 9 10 8 8 9 7 7 8
9 11 11 12 10 10 11 9 9 10 8 8 9 7 7 8
10 11 12 12 10 11 11 9 10 10 8 9 9 7 8 8
11 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11 8 9 10 7 8 9
12 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11 8 9 10 7 8 9
13 12 12 13 11 11 12 10 10 11 9 9 10 8 8 9
14 12 13 14 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11 8 9 10
15 12 13 14 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11 8 9 10
16 12 13 14 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11 8 9 10
17 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13 9 10 12 8 9 11
18 13 14 15 12 13 14 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11
19 13 14 15 12 13 14 11 12 13 10 11 12 9 10 11
20 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13 9 10 12
21 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13 9 10 12
22 13 15 16 12 14 15 11 13 14 10 12 13 9 11 12
23 14 15 17 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13
24 14 15 17 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13
25 14 15 17 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14 10 11 13
26 14 16 18 13 15 17 12 14 16 11 13 15 10 12 14
27 14 16 18 13 15 17 12 14 16 11 13 15 10 12 14
28 15 16 18 14 15 17 13 14 16 12 13 15 11 12 14
29 15 16 19 14 15 18 13 14 17 12 13 16 11 12 15
30 15 17 19 14 16 18 13 15 17 12 14 16 11 13 15
31 15 17 19 14 16 18 13 15 17 12 14 16 11 13 15
32 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18 12 14 17 11 13 16
33 16 17 20 15 16 19 14 15 18 13 14 17 12 13 16
34 16 18 20 15 17 19 14 16 18 13 15 17 12 14 16
35 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18 12 14 17
36 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18 12 14 17
37 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18 12 14 17
38 17 19 22 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18
39 17 19 22 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18
40 17 19 22 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19 13 15 18
41 17 19 23 16 18 22 15 17 21 14 16 20 13 15 19
42 17 20 23 16 19 22 15 18 21 14 17 20 13 16 19
43 18 20 23 17 19 22 16 18 21 15 17 20 14 16 19
44 18 20 24 17 19 23 16 18 22 15 17 21 14 16 20
45 18 20 24 17 19 23 16 18 22 15 17 21 14 16 20
46 18 21 24 17 20 23 16 19 22 15 18 21 14 17 20
47 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23 15 18 22 14 17 21
48 19 21 25 18 20 24 17 19 23 16 18 22 15 17 21
49 19 21 25 18 20 24 17 19 23 16 18 22 15 17 21
50 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23 15 18 22
51 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23 15 18 22
52 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23 15 18 22
53 20 22 27 19 21 26 18 20 25 17 19 24 16 18 23
54 20 23 27 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23
55 20 23 27 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24 16 19 23
56 20 23 28 19 22 27 18 21 26 17 20 25 16 19 24
57 20 23 28 19 22 27 18 21 26 17 20 25 16 19 24
58 21 24 28 20 23 27 19 22 26 18 21 25 17 20 24
59 21 24 29 20 23 28 19 22 27 18 21 26 17 20 25
60 21 24 29 20 23 28 19 22 27 18 21 26 17 20 25


If you'd rather see the percentages:


Char 9+C/5 9+C/4 9+C/3 8+C/5 8+C/4 8+C/3 7+C/5 7+C/4 7+C/3 6+C/5 6+C/4 6+C/3 5+C/5 5+C/4 5+C/3
0 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26% 4.63% 4.63% 4.63%
1 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26% 4.63% 4.63% 4.63%
2 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20% 4.63% 9.26% 9.26%
3 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26%
4 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26%
5 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93% 9.26% 9.26% 16.20%
6 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20%
7 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20%
8 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93%
9 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93%
10 62.50% 74.07% 74.07% 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93%
11 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00% 16.20% 25.93% 37.50%
12 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00% 16.20% 25.93% 37.50%
13 74.07% 74.07% 83.80% 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50%
14 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
15 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
16 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
17 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07% 25.93% 37.50% 62.50%
18 83.80% 90.74% 95.37% 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50%
19 83.80% 90.74% 95.37% 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50%
20 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07%
21 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07%
22 83.80% 95.37% 98.15% 74.07% 90.74% 95.37% 62.50% 83.80% 90.74% 50.00% 74.07% 83.80% 37.50% 62.50% 74.07%
23 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
24 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
25 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
26 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37% 50.00% 74.07% 90.74%
27 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37% 50.00% 74.07% 90.74%
28 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74%
29 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 99.54% 74.07% 83.80% 98.15% 62.50% 74.07% 95.37%
30 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37%
31 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37%
32 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54% 62.50% 83.80% 98.15%
33 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 99.54% 74.07% 83.80% 98.15%
34 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15%
35 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
36 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
37 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
38 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
39 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
40 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
41 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
42 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54% 83.80% 98.15% 99.54%
43 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
44 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
45 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
46 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54%
47 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54%
48 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
49 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
50 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
51 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
52 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
53 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
54 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
55 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
56 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
57 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
58 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%
59 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%
60 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%

[SteveZilla]

Not terribly difficult. Just a few minutes of spreadsheet fiddling:

If you'd rather see the percentages:


Char 9+C/5 9+C/4 9+C/3 8+C/5 8+C/4 8+C/3 7+C/5 7+C/4 7+C/3 6+C/5 6+C/4 6+C/3 5+C/5 5+C/4 5+C/3
0 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26% 4.63% 4.63% 4.63%
1 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26% 4.63% 4.63% 4.63%
2 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20% 4.63% 9.26% 9.26%
3 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26%
4 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 37.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.93% 25.93% 25.93% 16.20% 16.20% 16.20% 9.26% 9.26% 9.26%
5 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93% 9.26% 9.26% 16.20%
6 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20%
7 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93% 9.26% 16.20% 16.20%
8 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93%
9 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50% 16.20% 16.20% 25.93%
10 62.50% 74.07% 74.07% 50.00% 62.50% 62.50% 37.50% 50.00% 50.00% 25.93% 37.50% 37.50% 16.20% 25.93% 25.93%
11 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00% 16.20% 25.93% 37.50%
12 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00% 16.20% 25.93% 37.50%
13 74.07% 74.07% 83.80% 62.50% 62.50% 74.07% 50.00% 50.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50% 50.00% 25.93% 25.93% 37.50%
14 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
15 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
16 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50% 25.93% 37.50% 50.00%
17 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07% 25.93% 37.50% 62.50%
18 83.80% 90.74% 95.37% 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50%
19 83.80% 90.74% 95.37% 74.07% 83.80% 90.74% 62.50% 74.07% 83.80% 50.00% 62.50% 74.07% 37.50% 50.00% 62.50%
20 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07%
21 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80% 37.50% 50.00% 74.07%
22 83.80% 95.37% 98.15% 74.07% 90.74% 95.37% 62.50% 83.80% 90.74% 50.00% 74.07% 83.80% 37.50% 62.50% 74.07%
23 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
24 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
25 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74% 50.00% 62.50% 83.80%
26 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37% 50.00% 74.07% 90.74%
27 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37% 50.00% 74.07% 90.74%
28 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 98.15% 74.07% 83.80% 95.37% 62.50% 74.07% 90.74%
29 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 99.54% 74.07% 83.80% 98.15% 62.50% 74.07% 95.37%
30 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37%
31 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15% 62.50% 83.80% 95.37%
32 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54% 62.50% 83.80% 98.15%
33 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 98.15% 99.54% 90.74% 95.37% 99.54% 83.80% 90.74% 99.54% 74.07% 83.80% 98.15%
34 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 98.15%
35 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
36 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
37 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54% 74.07% 90.74% 99.54%
38 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
39 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
40 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
41 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54% 83.80% 95.37% 99.54%
42 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54% 83.80% 98.15% 99.54%
43 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
44 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
45 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 98.15% 99.54%
46 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54%
47 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54% 90.74% 99.54% 99.54%
48 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
49 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
50 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
51 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
52 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54% 95.37% 99.54% 99.54%
53 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
54 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
55 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
56 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
57 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 98.15% 99.54% 99.54%
58 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%
59 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%
60 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54% 99.54%


What do the percentages represent (chance of success)? And how were they calculated?

[Netzilla]

What do the percentages represent (chance of success)? And how were they calculated?

The first table is the target number you need on 3d6. So, if you've got a 15 Char and the skill roll is 8+C/4, your target number is 12-. If you look up that same intersection on the second chart, that's your chance of rolling 12- on 3d6. The thing to keep in mind with the second chart is that, with the Hero System, a roll of 18 always fails, so your chance of success can never actually exceed 99.54%.

Here's the 3d6 chart in case anyone would like a reminder:


Roll Occurances Chance to Roll That or Lower
3 1 0.005
4 3 0.019
5 6 0.046
6 10 0.093
7 15 0.162
8 21 0.259
9 25 0.375
10 27 0.500
11 27 0.625
12 25 0.741
13 21 0.838
14 15 0.907
15 10 0.954
16 6 0.981
17 3 0.995

[The Main Man]

Even though I was thinking CHAR/4, I think I can accept CHAR/3 since it does make sense for our heroes to be heroic and our superheroes to be super.

I also think that it would be a cool idea if the idea of alternative CHAR bases was incorporated by having CHAR bonuses abstracted from the Skills and the Skills themselves are interpreted with each situation.

Every Skill would have an assumed value of BASE (8-, 7-, whatever) + Levels but the CHAR/3 would be left out for case-by-case interpretation.

Then, and only then (so far) would COM actually have a tangible value!

[PhilFleischmann]

I imagine that the theory is that, by having skills and combat work by the same formula, you simplify the game and therefore make it easier for new players to join in. Thus, more players.

Not sure I buy it, but that appears to be the theory.
I don't buy the theory either. After all, all of us here play HERO despite the two different formulas. One very simple difference between two different elements of the game is not going to drive players away, and combining them into one isn't going to create such a big difference in complexity that anyone is going to suddenly find it simple enough to understand when they didn't before.

I've never heard anyone say, "I'd play D&D, if only Arcane and Divine Magic were combined into one. It's too complicated otherwise." I don't play deendee because I don't care for the system, not because of the similarity between the way they handle to-hit and skill rolls. And I don't think any D20 players would have been driven away if they had changed 4th ed so that skills and combat rolls worked differently.

[Xotl]

7 + CHAR/3 seems to be looking very nice. I quite like the expanded 10-14 range, general increased granularity, and utilization of the same divider as CV calculations.

[BobGreenwade]

7 + CHAR/3 seems to be looking very nice. I quite like the expanded 10-14 range, general increased granularity, and utilization of the same divider as CV calculations.Keep in mind, though, that some of us (myself among them; I've already posted my reasons) see that last point as a problem, not a bonus.

[Chris Goodwin]

The exact divider.... objectively, doesn't really matter that much, in fact maybe not in the slightest.... but (IMO) it has to feel right to the majority of existing Hero players.

I could argue about why it's not... but ultimately I'd be trying to find reasons why only because it didn't feel right, trying to either fight for a position or just justify why not to use it.

(For the record, I don't like the feel of CHAR/3, but anything I would say about it would boil down to that.)

[PhilFleischmann]

Well, for one, if skills are based on CHA/3, that makes the CHA (for the purposes of skills, anyway) 2/3 more useful, which means the price of the relevent CHA's might need to go up.

[Xotl]

Keep in mind, though, that some of us (myself among them; I've already posted my reasons) see that last point as a problem, not a bonus.

Oh I noticed; I just respectuflly disagree. :) I didn't bother adding in the "why" in detail because the arguments have already been made over the past two pages and I didn't want to rehash things, but instead just sum up the side I like and add my vote, for what it's worth.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, for one, if skills are based on CHA/3, that makes the CHA (for the purposes of skills, anyway) 2/3 more useful, which means the price of the relevent CHA's might need to go up.

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.

[The Main Man]

If the Combat and Skill calculations become identical then there's no need for a 10-Point "Overall" Level anymore unless a line more artificial than 5e is drawn between Combat and Skills.

[James Gillen]

If the Combat and Skill calculations become identical then there's no need for a 10-Point "Overall" Level anymore unless a line more artificial than 5e is drawn between Combat and Skills.

The Overall level still covers a broader category than 8 point levels with All Skills or All Combat.

jg

[The Main Man]

The Overall level still covers a broader category than 8 point levels with All Skills or All Combat.

jg

Oh yeah, I forgot about Find Weakness and general CHAR rolls.

You are correct sir.

[Talon]

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.

There's not much room for skill levels to go down IMO. When I looked at CHAR / 3 my thoughts on stat pricing were:

STR x1
DEX x3 (could make a case for x4 but I doubt it would fly)
CON x1
INT x2 (6 points for +1 to Char roll; still cheap but better than now)
EGO x2
PRE x2 (just like INT)

BODY x1 (move it to the lower set of stats as it doesn't have a stat roll)

[Klaus Mogensen]

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.
In the Characteristics thread, I have just posted (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1682344&postcount=3195) a characteristics set based on bonuses = CHA/2½ and reduced cost of skill levels.

It will make skill increases significantly cheaper (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), though that can be remedied by using a skill roll with a broader range than 3d6.

- Klaus

[GamePhil]

It will make skill increases significantly cheaper (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), though that can be remedied by using a skill roll with a broader range than 3d6.
- Klaus

In my experience, it's not skill increases that need to be cheaper, but possibly skills themselves. A character with a breadth of knowledge is very expensive, while a character with a narrow focus and high Skills can be done comparitively easily. Still, every little bit helps.

[The Main Man]

Here's a thought:
1pt buys Familiarity
3pts buys full use

OTOH, 1pt buys "Weapon Familiarity" for a single weapon, while 2pts lets you use an entire group (if one exists)

If all Skills were put to this kind of standard, then perhaps it should only cost 2pts to buy full use of a skill.

AFA Skill Levels go though, maybe they could go to 1pt like Background Skills.

[PhilFleischmann]

I know very little about martial arts, so correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't seem like a student learns martial arts one maneuver at a time, yet that's the way the system works: to build a "black belt" you buy all the maneuvers, and the KS: That Particular MA, and whatever weapons elements and related skills you need. But how do you buy someone who is less of an expert than that? It seems a bit strange to just buy some of the maneuvers, because then he can use them every bit as well as the expert.

I propose allowing some toned down, "beginner maneuvers". these, if bought with the maneuver-building system in UMA, would cost less than the minimum 3 points set by that book.

For example, if a particular MA has the following maneuvers:

4 M Dodge --/+5
4 M Strike +0/+2/+2d6
5 Def Strike +1/+3
4 M Block +2/+2
3 M Grab -1/-1/+10 STR
5 Off. Strike -2/+1/+4d6

A beginning student of this art might have:

2 Beginner's Dodge --/+4
2 Beginner's Strike +0/+1/+1d6
2 Beginner's Defensive Strike +0/+2
2 Beginner's Block +1/+1
2 Beginner's Grab -1/-1/+5 STR
2 Beginner's Offensive Strike -2/+0/+3d6

Because these maneuvers are so cheap (and thematically because they're biginner's maneuvers after all), they can't have Skill Levels applied to them. A beginner with an MA probably shouldn't have levels with it anyway.

This represents a character who is starting to learn how to use the techniques of the MA, but doesn't have it completely down yet. These "beginner's manuevers" should be thought of as not separate maneuvers, but as intermediate versions of the full maneuvers. Presumably, such a character will eventually spend XP to upgrade his Beginner's Defensive Strike, to the full Defensive Strike, for +3 points, etc. Only the "full" versions can have skill levels applied.

I came up with this idea because I wanted a character who'd had a little bit of MA training. It didn't seem right to just buy him, say, the full Defensive Strike and Martial Grab, but not have any knowledge at all of the dodging and blocking techniques. It seemed more realistic to have learned a bit of all the maneuvers, but still need some more practice/training with them.

What do you think? I'm especially interested to hear from those of you who actually know about martial arts and how they are taught/learned. Is this more realistic?

[AnotherSkip]

I do like this, but it might be restricted to advancement concerned Gm's

[BobGreenwade]

Phil, I don't think I'd put your method of Martial Arts into the core rulebook, but I do think it'd be an excellent thing to include in the subsequent Book of Martial Arts. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

I know very little about martial arts, so correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't seem like a student learns martial arts one maneuver at a time, yet that's the way the system works: to build a "black belt" you buy all the maneuvers, and the KS: That Particular MA, and whatever weapons elements and related skills you need. But how do you buy someone who is less of an expert than that? It seems a bit strange to just buy some of the maneuvers, because then he can use them every bit as well as the expert.

I propose allowing some toned down, "beginner maneuvers". these, if bought with the maneuver-building system in UMA, would cost less than the minimum 3 points set by that book.

While I like the idea in principal, in practice I suspect it would be about as popular as working a new skill up from Familiarity - players want the Char-based roll right off the bat. Still, each of these has a use, so I could see it getting more use. I think it's an expansion rule more than a core rule (and it will have to be unless building MA maneuvers makes its way into the core book).

Because these maneuvers are so cheap (and thematically because they're beginner's maneuvers after all), they can't have Skill Levels applied to them. A beginner with an MA probably shouldn't have levels with it anyway.

What about an experienced HTH combatant, possibly already skilled in MA, who is learning a new martial discipline? It seems reasonable he could apply some of his experience with other disciplines to this new one. Of course, that assumes such a character is buying a new style, rather than cherrypicking some new maneuvers. Obviously, Levels with Karate can't be used with Kung Fu, but levels with martial arts or HTH seem reasonably applicable. Now, what if we had a 1 point version that allowed no levels - a true familiarity only?

Assuming this were adopted, what does it do to the minimum investment in MA?

[The Main Man]

I think that the Martial Maneuver creation rules should be in the core book.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I prefer Martial Arts to be 0-point optional maneuvers, which perhaps you must buy Martial Arts Familiarity to get access to. You can then apply 3-point or 5-point skill levels to affect OCV, DCV and damage (and perhaps add a few dice of HA).

For one thing, this is much simpler than the current long list of martial maneuvers that are simply basic maneuvers with bonuses.

For another, Martial Artists based on many skill levels will be much more flexible than if based on a handful of fixed maneuvers.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

+6 with All Combat and HA +6d6 does go a long way.

[Klaus Mogensen]

+6 with All Combat and HA +6d6 does go a long way.
Yes, but that costs 68 points...

I'm thinking more in the line of designating 3 or 6 maneuvers (optional or standard) to be a Martial Arts style and then buy 3- or 5-point skill levels for them, plus perhaps up to 2d6 HA.

Say you choose "Strike", "Dodge" and "Block" as your maneuvers and buy four 3-point levels with them, plus 2d6 HA (sfx: martial arts). That will cost 19 points and will allow e.g. a Strike with +4d6 (~ Offensive Strike), a Strike with +2d6, +1 OCV, +3 DCV (~ combination Martial/Defensive Strike), a Block with +2 OCV, +2 DCV (~ Martial Block), a Dodge with a total +7 DCV (~ Martial Dodge). This covers Martial Maneuvers totaling 22 points and even gets some added OCV/DCV bonuses. Kinda makes me wonder why people even buy Martial Arts...

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Another, much simpler idea I had after my last post, for how to represent a non-expert martial artist: Go ahead and buy the full maneuvers of the MA (as many as you like, but probably should be at least the standard 10 points-worth minimum), and then take 1-3 Negative CSLs, for use with the MA. Sure, you can use whatever fancy maneuver you've bought, you're just going to have to take a -1 (or a few) somewhere when you do it.

I prefer Martial Arts to be 0-point optional maneuvers, which perhaps you must buy Martial Arts Familiarity to get access to. You can then apply 3-point or 5-point skill levels to affect OCV, DCV and damage (and perhaps add a few dice of HA).
Yes. And this techniques is mentioned in UMA. One problem with it is that it doesn't allow for any penalties beyond those that are in the standard and optional maneuvers. None of the following MA elements would be available:

Fall
Throw
Killing Damage
NND Damage
Must Follow another maneuver
Response
Flash
Disable
DCV-
OCV-
STR-
Bind
Unbalancing
Take Damage (other than Move-By/Move-Thru)
Time+ (Other than Haymaker)

So as simple and workable as it is (and it's not a bad idea at all), it loses a lot of flavor, IMO.

For one thing, this is much simpler than the current long list of martial maneuvers that are simply basic maneuvers with bonuses.
Well, you could always create a bunch of new 0-point maneuvers that include as many of those other elements as you like, but then you're back to a long list of maneuvers. And should all characters have access to any new maneuvers created? If one wanted to create some new 0-point "martial" maneuvers, perhaps characters should have to buy a skill/talent that gives access to them (for no more than 1-3 points, probably).

For another, Martial Artists based on many skill levels will be much more flexible than if based on a handful of fixed maneuvers.
Flexible in some respects, but not in others. They can't use any of the elements I listed above (both helpful and restrictive). A CSL-based martial artist, who simply buys 3 CSLs with HtH combat can never gain an extra DC in exchange for being prone at the end of the maneuver, nor can he take -2 DCV in exchange for even greater OCV or DCs.

[The Main Man]

OTOH, they can use two CSL's (minimum 3-pt level) to boost damage by 1 DC (if Heroic) which could correspond to the doubling effect of adding +3 DC when designing a Custom Maneuver.

IOW, what if CSL's could be used for different Elements for an exchange rate?

[SteveZilla]

I propose allowing some toned down, "beginner maneuvers". these, if bought with the maneuver-building system in UMA, would cost less than the minimum 3 points set by that book.

...

Because these maneuvers are so cheap (and thematically because they're biginner's maneuvers after all), they can't have Skill Levels applied to them. A beginner with an MA probably shouldn't have levels with it anyway.

I like this idea. It allows for "partially trained" M/A concepts as well as just an overall lesser "power level" -- like for low-level Heroic games.

I would propose these beginner maneuvers would be restricted so that they cannot:
1. apply CSLs or PSLs to them,
2. apply M/A DCs to them,
3. Sweep with them.

IOW, what if CSL's could be used for different Elements for an exchange rate?

An interesting idea, but IMO it should not be useable by a "non-Martial Artist". A character should have a certain minimum of Martial Training to be able to use Martial Elements. You don't see skilled HtH brawlers doing Judo Throws on each other.

[nexus]

The "beginner's maneuvers" are an interesting idea but I'd like to suggest that would be more fitting presented as optiona in the 6th Edition UMA rather than the corebook for more martial arts oriented games and settings.

[The Main Man]

An interesting idea, but IMO it should not be useable by a "non-Martial Artist". A character should have a certain minimum of Martial Training to be able to use Martial Elements. You don't see skilled HtH brawlers doing Judo Throws on each other.
Perhaps a KS: [Appropriate Martial Art] would suffice?

This would decently work as a Complementary Skill Roll if Combat and Skills became unified.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Well, you could always create a bunch of new 0-point maneuvers that include as many of those other elements as you like, but then you're back to a long list of maneuvers. And should all characters have access to any new maneuvers created? If one wanted to create some new 0-point "martial" maneuvers, perhaps characters should have to buy a skill/talent that gives access to them (for no more than 1-3 points, probably).
A part of my idea is to have such new 0-point maneuvers, but perhaps require "Martial Arts Familiarity" in order to use them, similar to Weapon Familiarity. This will remove the current MA system, which doesn't correspond to anything else in the rules, in favor of a system in line with the rest of the rules.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

Yes, but that costs 68 points...

I'm thinking more in the line of designating 3 or 6 maneuvers (optional or standard) to be a Martial Arts style and then buy 3- or 5-point skill levels for them, plus perhaps up to 2d6 HA.

Say you choose "Strike", "Dodge" and "Block" as your maneuvers and buy four 3-point levels with them, plus 2d6 HA (sfx: martial arts). That will cost 19 points and will allow e.g. a Strike with +4d6 (~ Offensive Strike), a Strike with +2d6, +1 OCV, +3 DCV (~ combination Martial/Defensive Strike), a Block with +2 OCV, +2 DCV (~ Martial Block), a Dodge with a total +7 DCV (~ Martial Dodge). This covers Martial Maneuvers totaling 22 points and even gets some added OCV/DCV bonuses. Kinda makes me wonder why people even buy Martial Arts...

- Klaus

I'm not a big fan of the idea that "everything that fights must have martial arts" which some people seem to have - so this is exactly how I buy brawling - somebody who's good at fighting, but has no defined style.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

So as simple and workable as it is (and it's not a bad idea at all), it loses a lot of flavor, IMO.

Well, you could always create a bunch of new 0-point maneuvers that include as many of those other elements as you like, but then you're back to a long list of maneuvers. And should all characters have access to any new maneuvers created? If one wanted to create some new 0-point "martial" maneuvers, perhaps characters should have to buy a skill/talent that gives access to them (for no more than 1-3 points, probably).

I don't see losing the various elements you list as a step forward. Allowing them as 0 point maneuvers carries its own issues. First, as you note, giving them to everyone doesn't appeal. Requiring a skill/talent to access them makes some sense, but if the list is extensive, that 1-3 point cost becomes a no brainer - virtually every character had the maneuvers and we might as well have, say, 147 point standard heroic characters and 347 point standard Supers with access to all the maneuvers.

Of course, you could raise the cost, but then we get characters who only want access to a few, or a couple, of maneuvers and really should be able to limit the cost since they get such a small portion of the benefit. Once we get to that point, we're getting close to individual maneuver costs again.

We could dovetail this with weapon familiarity - you get one maneuver for 1 point, a group of related maneuvers for 2 points, a larger group for 3 points. But this likely becomes like Weapon Familiarities - anyone who would consider attacking HTH buys the full "Common Maneuvers" groups because the cost different is so small compared to the increase in options.

Another of those ideas that seems interesting, but would be pretty tough to implement.

[Klaus Mogensen]

We could dovetail this with weapon familiarity - you get one maneuver for 1 point, a group of related maneuvers for 2 points, a larger group for 3 points. But this likely becomes like Weapon Familiarities - anyone who would consider attacking HTH buys the full "Common Maneuvers" groups because the cost different is so small compared to the increase in options.

Another of those ideas that seems interesting, but would be pretty tough to implement.
I don't see it as much of a problem if most characters buy the "Common Manuvers" category, since you would probably need 8-point CSLs to affect all the maneuvers. The idea of focusing more narrowly is that this allows the use of 3-point levels (three maneuvers or a group of related maneuvers) or 5-point levels (a larger group of maneuvers).

- Klaus

[SteveZilla]

I don't see it as much of a problem if most characters buy the "Common Manuvers" category, since you would probably need 8-point CSLs to affect all the maneuvers. The idea of focusing more narrowly is that this allows the use of 3-point levels (three maneuvers or a group of related maneuvers) or 5-point levels (a larger group of maneuvers).

- Klaus

What happened to the 5 pt level being with all HtH combat like it is now?

[Klaus Mogensen]

What happened to the 5 pt level being with all HtH combat like it is now?
That may actually be a little too cheap, considering that such levels can be used for both OCV and DCV, whereas ranged 5-point levels can't be used for defense. I would rather see 5-point levels as "all HTH or ranged attack" or "attack and defense, broad group of maneuvers".

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

I don't have the book on me but I am pretty sure that 5pt Ranged Levels can be used for DCV but it's only versus ranged attacks in the same way that HTH Levels only adjust DCV versus HTH attacks.

[PhilFleischmann]

IOW, what if CSL's could be used for different Elements for an exchange rate?
Not a bad idea. It would make CSLs a little better, a more attractive trade-off than simply buying up DEX. Then the next question is, what about the restrictive elements, like Fall, Follow, Responce, DCV-, etc.? Well, the first answer that comes to mind is a 1-to-1 "exchange rate" for those, that will then grant one of the other, helpful, elements.

For example, with 3 CSLs, you could do a normal Strike with any of the following combinations:

+3 OCV
+3 DCV
+1 OCV, +1 DC
+1 OCV, Target Falls (assuming we decide that making the target fall takes 2 CSLs)
+2 DCV, You Fall, Target Falls
+2 OCV, +2 DCV, Must Follow a successful Block
+1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 DC, Must be in responce to opponent's Grab
+1 OCV, +2 DC, Unbalancing, Time+ (attack lands at end of next segment)
etc.

Requiring a skill/talent to access them makes some sense, but if the list is extensive, that 1-3 point cost becomes a no brainer - virtually every character had the maneuvers and we might as well have, say, 147 point standard heroic characters and 347 point standard Supers with access to all the maneuvers.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Any character that isn't focused on HtH combat, or fancy combat maneuvers in general, won't bother to buy this. "A good ol' blaster is all I need." Likewise, "true" martial artists would buy martial arts as they exist now, and wouldn't bother with these extraneous non-martial maneuvers.

[The Main Man]

Not a bad idea. It would make CSLs a little better, a more attractive trade-off than simply buying up DEX. Then the next question is, what about the restrictive elements, like Fall, Follow, Responce, DCV-, etc.? Well, the first answer that comes to mind is a 1-to-1 "exchange rate" for those, that will then grant one of the other, helpful, elements.

For example, with 3 CSLs, you could do a normal Strike with any of the following combinations:

+3 OCV
+3 DCV
+1 OCV, +1 DC
+1 OCV, Target Falls (assuming we decide that making the target fall takes 2 CSLs)
+2 DCV, You Fall, Target Falls
+2 OCV, +2 DCV, Must Follow a successful Block
+1 OCV, +1 DCV, +1 DC, Must be in responce to opponent's Grab
+1 OCV, +2 DC, Unbalancing, Time+ (attack lands at end of next segment)
etc.

If they were implemented like so, Martial Arts maneuvers could be redefined as specific constructs of the application of CSL's ("and this is how you build a Karate Chop").

[Klaus Mogensen]

If they were implemented like so, Martial Arts maneuvers could be redefined as specific constructs of the application of CSL's ("and this is how you build a Karate Chop").
That was my intention. Replace the current MA rules with a box that explains how you build MA from skill levels and HA (and possible some other existing powers/talents).

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Any character that isn't focused on HtH combat, or fancy combat maneuvers in general, won't bother to buy this. "A good ol' blaster is all I need." Likewise, "true" martial artists would buy martial arts as they exist now, and wouldn't bother with these extraneous non-martial maneuvers.

This depends on the genre and game style. In a Supers game, a Mentalist may have little use for such maneuvers. But how many pulp characters never get involved in a fistfight, and even the oldest, frailest wizard tends to carry a staff or a dagger.

As to the Blaster, what happens to ranged martial arts under your system?

To the MA, would he be better off buying a bunch of MA maneuvers, or spending 1-3 points for the watered down versions and buying skill levels?

[Klaus Mogensen]

This depends on the genre and game style. In a Supers game, a Mentalist may have little use for such maneuvers. But how many pulp characters never get involved in a fistfight, and even the oldest, frailest wizard tends to carry a staff or a dagger.
So? There are many things most characters buy in some genres.

As to the Blaster, what happens to ranged martial arts under your system?
About what happens to HtH martial arts.

To the MA, would he be better off buying a bunch of MA maneuvers, or spending 1-3 points for the watered down versions and buying skill levels?
Definitely the latter - see my analysis in Post 831 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1689603&postcount=831).

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

So? There are many things most characters buy in some genres.

That's a separate issue from my comment to Phil's claim that this would not be purchased by virtually every character. If every character has an ability, all we have really done is reduce the total points available to the characters and added this ability to everyone.

About what happens to HtH martial arts.

In which case Phil's statement that Blasters won't spend points on "maneuver familiarity" is not correct. They might have different familiarities from HTH combatants, but likely with similar effects.

[JmOz]

That may actually be a little too cheap, considering that such levels can be used for both OCV and DCV, whereas ranged 5-point levels can't be used for defense. I would rather see 5-point levels as "all HTH or ranged attack" or "attack and defense, broad group of maneuvers".

- Klaus

the 5 point DCV thing is only when it is built into a foci IIRC

[JmOz]

I don't have the book on me but I am pretty sure that 5pt Ranged Levels can be used for DCV but it's only versus ranged attacks in the same way that HTH Levels only adjust DCV versus HTH attacks.

RAW: Actualy by the rules that is an optional rule, base rule is that the DCV bonus effects all attacks (ranged and Melee). Personaly I hope this remains the way of things, or if (And I see this to be hugely possible) that the optional rule becomes the default, then at least the current default becomes an optional rule...

[Klaus Mogensen]

the 5 point DCV thing is only when it is built into a foci IIRC
I think you're referring to the fact that skill levels cheaper than 5 cannot be limited. Hence, if you want to buy "+1 OCV with a single attack" (normally 2 points) into a focus, you need to pay for a 5-point level.

I have always thought this rule to be rather bad, since it makes cheap levels more expensive, but doesn't affect large levels. I have considered in stead requiring that levels you limit must be one step more expensive than normal (2 -> 3 -> 5 -> 8 -> 10); but perhaps it is better to simply say that skill levels are adders that are applied after all advantages and limitations. True, this means that you don't get points for limitations, but this is offset by you not having to pay points for advantages.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

RAW: Actualy by the rules that is an optional rule, base rule is that the DCV bonus effects all attacks (ranged and Melee). Personaly I hope this remains the way of things, or if (And I see this to be hugely possible) that the optional rule becomes the default, then at least the current default becomes an optional rule...

I don't think that we're on the same wavelength here.

You can use a 5-pt HTH CSL for DCV in HTH Combat.
You can use a 5-pt Ranged CSL for DCV in Ranged Combat.
You can purchase a 5-pt CSL for DCV in all Combat.

[Klaus Mogensen]

You can use a 5-pt HTH CSL for DCV in HTH Combat.
You can use a 5-pt Ranged CSL for DCV in Ranged Combat.
You can purchase a 5-pt CSL for DCV in all Combat.
I'm not sure about the middle part of this.

Quoting from 5e, p. 36: "Characters can buy the 5-point CSL as +1 OCV or DCV with all HTH combat, +1 OCV with all Ranged Combat, or +1 OCV or DCV with a related group of HTH and Ranged attacks (such as 'US Army Infantry Weapons')."

Note that this specifically doesn't mention DCV in relation with ranged combat, except in a related group of HTH and Ranged attacks (which suggests to me that the DCV bonus only goes for the HTH part of the group).

This interpretation seems to be borne out by the optional rule later on the same page that suggests that only 8-point levels can be used for DCV against Ranged attacks, since ranged attacks are so much harder to avoid.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Hm.

I'll have to get out my copy of 5er later.

[AnotherSkip]

Not etirely sure I want to build Martial arts for every character that has them every time.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Not etirely sure I want to build Martial arts for every character that has them every time.
My take is that Martial Arts shouldn't be built anew every time. Instead, characters should just buy combat skill levels and perhaps a few dice of HTH Attack. This provides much greater flexibility than buying a handful of fixed maneuvers. Of course, this requires that some of the Martial Arts maneuvers be redesigned as 0-point optional maneuvers.

Let's say that you can get the "Target Falls" effect at the cost of 3 skill levels, then the only (5e) Martial Arts Maneuvers that need to be redesigned are Choke Hold, Killing Strike, Nerve Strike, and Sacrifice Throw. That's 4 maneuvers and a skill level option to replace 14 maneuvers.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Actually, (at least as of the current rules), they can just buy a bunch of STR with a Limitation removing the Lifting Capacity element and that takes care of most maneuvers right there.

[Vulcan]

This interpretation seems to be borne out by the optional rule later on the same page that suggests that only 8-point levels can be used for DCV against Ranged attacks, since ranged attacks are so much harder to avoid.

- Klaus

My version of HeroDesigner (2.37) still allows the 5 point 'overall DCV' level. The new version may have changed that, but I think it would be a bad thing. The 'dedicated DCV level' makes certain concepts not only easier, but simply possible.

[Klaus Mogensen]

My version of HeroDesigner (2.37) still allows the 5 point 'overall DCV' level. The new version may have changed that, but I think it would be a bad thing. The 'dedicated DCV level' makes certain concepts not only easier, but simply possible.
As I wrote, requiring 8-point levels for DCV against ranged is an optional rule. However, it does indicate that 5-point Ranged aren't meant to be used for DCV against ranged.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Not to get too OT, but I just had another thought:
CSL's never sat right for Optional Maneuvers for me since they can be used in conjunction with other manuevers.

PSL's would probably serve them better.

[JmOz]

I don't think that we're on the same wavelength here.

You can use a 5-pt HTH CSL for DCV in HTH Combat.
You can use a 5-pt Ranged CSL for DCV in Ranged Combat.
You can purchase a 5-pt CSL for DCV in all Combat.

Actualy by RAW (at least in non revised)

If you are fighting in HtH, and apply your HtH Skill levels to DCV you become harder to hit at range, the optional rule on the bottom of page 36 does 2 things, 1 it makes it function as you are saying, where you need to be using the "right kind" of CSL to modify tiyr DCV (Range for Range DCV, HtH for Hand to Hand). Second it also includes the no DCV bonus except for 8 point skill levels

Now personaly I feel that having both of these options are important to have for the GM toolkit. In a Swashbuckling highly romantic setting it is very appropriate for all CSL's to add to the character, in more realistic games then it does not make alot of sense

[JmOz]

I think you're referring to the fact that skill levels cheaper than 5 cannot be limited. Hence, if you want to buy "+1 OCV with a single attack" (normally 2 points) into a focus, you need to pay for a 5-point level.

I have always thought this rule to be rather bad, since it makes cheap levels more expensive, but doesn't affect large levels. I have considered in stead requiring that levels you limit must be one step more expensive than normal (2 -> 3 -> 5 -> 8 -> 10); but perhaps it is better to simply say that skill levels are adders that are applied after all advantages and limitations. True, this means that you don't get points for limitations, but this is offset by you not having to pay points for advantages.

- Klaus

Actualy reading the rules I was wrong, I was thinking of how in 5th (nor revised) not allowing DCV with range was an optional rule, not sure how it is for 5r

[CTaylor]

I have been thinking, based on some discussion elsewhere about moving around on the battlefield, that there should be an additional group of martial arts elements. While adding DCV or OCV to yourself can represent putting an opponent off balance, it isn't very exact because it works on everyone else around you.

But if there were elements that lowered the target's OCV or DCV (or DEX rank, damage dealt, etc) then you could more accurately represent a feint or putting someone off balance, and several other maneuvers. Perhaps the "drain" element, it would have to be pretty expensive, perhaps limited to -1 CV or DC, but this would be a nice addition.

[AnotherSkip]

or a Change Environment that only affected a single target?

[SteveZilla]

or a Change Environment that only affected a single target?

Isn't there already an option for this? IIRC, it's mentioned under AoE: Hex as an alternate way to do the "Accurate" option for powers that already affect an area.

[CTaylor]

Sure, you could build it like that - just like you could theoretically build martial arts as powers and skills. But I think a martial arts element that you can build maneuvers around which lowers the target's CV or damage for one phase would be a useful addition to the system.

[The Main Man]

Sure, you could build it like that - just like you could theoretically build martial arts as powers and skills. But I think a martial arts element that you can build maneuvers around which lowers the target's CV or damage for one phase would be a useful addition to the system.

I think that it could be an extension of KS: [Martial Art X].

A martial arts package could essentially be a list of maneuver elemental constructions (which they already technically are) that best simulate the art while at the same time it doesn't leave out room for improvisation.

[AnotherSkip]

Perhaps also as a part of Analyze skill, make it by enough and you get all sorts of goodies....

[Kraven Kor]

My only point on skills would be to somehow make rolls better than 18- have an affect outside of negating penalties. Even if it is just sidebars showing the possible results of "superhuman" skill rolls for some or all skills.

[steamteck]

My take is that Martial Arts shouldn't be built anew every time. Instead, characters should just buy combat skill levels and perhaps a few dice of HTH Attack. This provides much greater flexibility than buying a handful of fixed maneuvers.


- Klaus

But lots less personality and flavor and no difference between them if I'm understanding you.

[StGrimblefig]

My take is that Martial Arts shouldn't be built anew every time. Instead, characters should just buy combat skill levels and perhaps a few dice of HTH Attack. This provides much greater flexibility than buying a handful of fixed maneuvers. Of course, this requires that some of the Martial Arts maneuvers be redesigned as 0-point optional maneuvers.

But lots less personality and flavor and no difference between them if I'm understanding you.
To quote an old SNL bit (and I'm talkin' 70's SNL):
"It's a floor wax!"
"It's a dessert topping!"
"You're BOTH right!"

As it is right now, the system gives you the flexibility to do it either way you want to. If the campaign is primarily four-color supers, then the differences between different styles of martial arts are less likely to be important, so there is no reason to use TUMA to define the martial arts. However, if you are running a martial-arts themed campaign, then the differences are more important, and it makes more sense to specify the details (using TUMA). Whichever way fits best with the campaign (and the GM's vision of it), is probably the best.

Hopefully, 6th will retain this flexibility.

[Klaus Mogensen]

But lots less personality and flavor and no difference between them if I'm understanding you.
There'll be lots of difference between Martial Arts styles!

It will make a heck of a difference whether you buy 3-point levels in Strike, Block, and Disarm, or in Throw, Dodge and Grab - or 5-point levels that cover all of these.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Yes, there will be no mechanical difference.

[sardonically slippery slope] Next thing you know Fireball and Lightning Bolt are separate powers. [/sardonically slippery slope]

[The Main Man]

I'm almost thinking that it would kind of neat if a lot of the Martial Arts Elements became Optional Maneuvers that carry penalties.

Martial Arts would then be a collection of CSL's and PSL's to use these Optional Maneuvers.

OTOH, other characters could still use them but not so gracefully.

Think of it this way: picture a kung fu fan who tries to ape a roundhouse kick or a karate chop but is no good at it. This is a character who lacks CSL's and PSL's to effectively implement these Maneuvers but a trained Martial Artist has the appropriate C/PSL's to use them effectively.

I think that this idea ties in well with Phil Fleishmann's "Start