Skills Issues [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Steve Long

Feb 11th, '08, 05:46 AM

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Skills that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Skills that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: The so-called “General Skills” were eliminated from 5E because they were an annoyance and illogicality in a system where most Skills derive their base roll from a Characteristic. However, it’s worth considering whether making all Skills non-Characteristic-based would improve the System. “Realistically,” I think that competence with most learned abilities come from study, training, practice, and experience — not innate aptitude, though innate aptitude can play a part. But as it stands in the HERO System, it’s easy to look at things and assume that for 3 points, you can buy a roll that lets a character succeed well over 50% of the time based on natural aptitude alone (i.e., a Characteristic-based roll).

Changing to a system where all Skills with rolls start at some predefined level and can be bought up from there would eliminate that, and also tend to increase character granularity/differentiation. It would also eliminate some of the reasons for buying Characteristics at the 3 and 8 “breakpoints” (see above).

However, it would probably mean characters would need to spend more points on Skills to reach the same level of competence, and that might entail increasing the amount of points characters are built on. It also tends to downplay the “dramatic simulation” aspects of the System, which are enhanced by letting characters have (relatively) high Skill Rolls cheaply. At present I don’t see that there’s enough benefit to make this change worthwhile.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: 5ER 42-43 has a nice rundown of the five different “cost structures” for Skills in the HERO System. An argument can be made that it would be better if the number of “categories” were reduced, perhaps even to just one. This would make the HERO System easier to learn and use. However, I don’t think this is worth doing. The different cost structures help to distinguish the Skills in desireable ways. Changing them to, for example, all work on a Characteristic-based roll would require a lot of contorting and cause just as many problems (or more).

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any reason to; I think the current Skill list is a pretty good one overall. But as always I’m willing to entertain motions from the floor. ;)

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

Steve’s Thoughts: Everyone loves CSLs because, well, they make you better at fighting (a key element of adventure in nearly every genre) and so wonderfully allow you to differentiate or more precisely define characters. But that level of use means people pay close attention to them, and that has consequences. On the one hand, CSLs as presented in 5ER tend to lead to all sorts of questions (look at the Rules FAQ on them) and are potentially prone to abuse due to a (relative) lack of granularity. On the other hand, as those of you who have The Ultimate Skill have seen, correcting these problems required me to write about 8,000 words of text, requiring eight printed pages. There’s no way I’m going to put that level of detail in the core rulebook.

So we’re left with three options: streamline/abstract CSLs even further (which will likely only make the problem worse); leave them as they are as the best middle-of-the-road compromise; or expand them a little bit to try to smooth out existing problems without creating new ones. I currently lean toward what’s behind Door #2, but Door #3 isn’t entirely unattractive.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

Steve’s Thoughts: TUS 216 raises this possibility, and it’s not without some attraction (there’s some concern nimrods would think that means you have to make a roll to speak all the time — but we don’t want to try to design rules to be nimrod-proof, it’s an exercise in futility). The Language Familiarity Table would come into play as indicated modifiers to the Skill Roll. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, but it’s worth considering. At the very least, I may incorporate the TUS 216 rules as a sidebar or an option.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: It has been suggested that Martial Arts are too cheap for what they give you — that buying the equivalent to Martial Strike as, say, HA plus CSLs would cost more than the Martial Maneuver does. While there may be some technical truth to this, I don’t think that Martial Arts are unbalanced or cause any particular game problems, so I see no need to change them.

Sunsword

Feb 17th, '08, 05:24 PM

I have 2 suggestions:

1) At least present an option for a Single Unified Cost for Skills as a Sidebar. I think many new games find this a much better option than multiple costs for skills.

2) I'd like to present the idea of changing the Skill System to work like the OCV/DCV combat system. You Default to 0 if you are Unskilled. Buying the 1st Rank of SKill makes it equal to Attribute/3 & each Additional Rank increases that by 1. Skills are resolved by the Skill Value being Compared to a Difficulty Value (either decided by the GM or an Oppenents SV) & using the formula for Combat: SV-DV/SV = X; X then modifies 11 appropriately. I like this because it removes "Skill Caps" & Attributes can continue to influence Skills. It also completely unifies the resolution formula.

JmOz

Feb 17th, '08, 05:25 PM

Another odd idea, not sure how it would work out in general, but

What about keeping skill rolls based on characteristics but not deciding which one.

For instance, acrobatics.

If you are trying to WOW an audience you would base it on PRE, if you are trying to slip through a laser net security system DEX, if you want to remember who won the olympics INT, etc...

You would note it Acrobatics +2. For one point you still get an 8-, for 2 points a 11-

Michael Hopcroft

Feb 17th, '08, 06:53 PM

How do you broaden or narrow a skill's base of influence (for example, you're a whiz at Poker but totally unfamiliar with other Gambling games)?

James Gillen

Feb 17th, '08, 09:31 PM

My general thoughts on Skills:

1. The Skill description needs to have something like "Base Time to Use" so that we have a better idea of how modifiers for rushing or Extra Time would work on the Time Chart.

2. There should be a GURPS-like principle of 1 point for 8 or less Familiarity, 2 points for an 11- and 3 points for Characteristic-based Skill, with the bonus points working as usual (+1 per +1 for Background Skills, 2 points per +1 for other Skills).

3. Ditch the various subcategories of Skill for Animal Handler and the like or at least make them optional.

JG

Jhamin

Feb 17th, '08, 09:34 PM

I should preface this by saying that I am a big proponent of the "roll high" philosopy.

I might suggest that the current skill sytem be slightly modified. The current system is great for "can I do it or not?" type rolls, but I find it doesn't work well when you are trying to have the world's best lockpick open the world toughest lock. In theory a lockpicking roll of 8- will open anything with a lucky roll and that Lockpicking: 23- roll is just shielding you from skill penalties.

This tends to create situations where the worlds greatest Lockpick blows his roll, but it is still possible for anybody else in the group who rolls better on their 11- roll to still open the bloody thing.

I would suggest flipping over the values and going for a "Target Number" system. This won't even involve changing costs.

My thoughts go something like this: Either establish a base value for the skills, or have them continue to run off of your characteristic roll. Putting points into the roll will allow to to even attempt the skill, and putting more points in would give you a "+" to the roll.

So instead of a dex 12 character having: Stealth - 14-, 7 points

He would instead have: Stealth +2, 7 points.

When he wants to sneak up on someone, he rolls his stealth adding his skill bonus and the target rolls perception adding any bonuses they may have bought and the person who got the best total wins. Critically, you can just establish that certain feats (Like opening the worlds greatest lock) requires a particular total roll.

This would have the same effect as the current rules but allows you to simplify the process immensely. No more needing to figure out how much you made your roll by vs. how much they made theirs by.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 17th, '08, 09:51 PM

I've often pondered just making all of the Skills 2 points for a CHA roll, +1 per point. Divorcing them from Characteristics (not my ideal, but if it happens it happens) would make them all 2 points for 11-, +1 per point, and essentially make every Skill a variation on a KS/PS/SS. This would give players and GMs tons of room to define Skills.

incrdbil

Feb 17th, '08, 10:23 PM

I disliek the decoupling skills for characteristics, as it goes away from so many staple chaacters. Sure ,we always say a great scientist can have a !) int and just a lot of skills, but look at the characters people play.

the geat scientist inventors have high INT scores. The super skilled acrobats have a great dexterity. Even in games where stat blocks dont immediately improve skill rolls, you see this trend.

Some game systems use stats in certain ways, like in setting skill value caps, or affecting the experience cost of skills bought in certain areas to reflect how the natural advantage a character with superior stats has over his more mundane counterparts. I think keeping starting rolls based on stats is simply intuitive, something any new player will understand, and it works with the type of characters people want to play anyway.

Enforcer84

Feb 17th, '08, 10:53 PM

I posit that in fantasy/superheroics/science fiction supremely intelligent/athletic characters exist who in no way trained to get where they were (Spiderman's acrobatic prowess did not come from a lifelong dedication to Gymnastics, The Fixer did not train at the finest schools)
but some who lack these gifts become very skilled as well. Therefore the perfect system would take both into account.

Hey look! We've got that already. Yay us!

Gideon

Feb 18th, '08, 12:45 AM

First I would like to say that for the most part I like the skill system as it stands.

I do, however, have problems when it comes to certain skills. Namely: Computer Use and Languages.

Computer use is not a skill in the game. Computer Programing is, and Systems Operations, but not Computer use.

I know a fair number of people who have trouble using programs, surfing the web, sending e-mails, and dealing with system errors. I also know a great deal of people who are wizards at using a computer and navigating the web, but have absolutely no knowledge of programming. So I would like it if this could be an added skill.

Languages pose a slight problem to me. I noticed the problem when one GM I have said that he wanted to run an International UN Super team. Many countries have several official languages (and most of them are related to one another). India ranks in at 22, and South Africa at 11. I wanted my characters to know more than one of the official languages from their native country, but if I wanted to be strict about rules (and said GM is strict about rules) since most of those languages don't appear in the book they count as "Native", and cost extra points.

Now, I love the language chart and how it functions, but a large number of languages are simply not represented, and they are languages that I would not consider "native languages" because they share a great deal of similarities to other languages.

Specifically, many african languages (such as Xhosa, Ndebele, and Venda) are all related to Zulu. Most of the 22 languages of India don't appear on the chart (including Sanskrit). And the Austronesian languages are mostly left of the chart. So while Tagalog is on the list most of its related languages, including Hawaiian, do not appear.

Because of this, if you want to adhere to the rules strictly, languages like Samoan, Malagasy, Hawaiian, Urdu, and Sanskrit must be purchased as "native languages" and therefore cost you extra points, even though they are closely related to languages that do appear on the chart.

My solution would be to alter the chart slightly to include more of these languages. You don't need to make the chart overwhelming, You can easily list "Austronesian languages" as a group, and if needed simply list the main austronesian languages somewhere else in the book.

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 03:29 AM

Things to consider:

1. Assuming we keep characteristic links to skills, change the break point to CHAR/3 rather than CHAR/5; this would bring the system for skills in line with the combat system, which is extremely flexible and user friendly IMO.

2. Change the way we record skills. This is not just about presentation. Instead of Stealth 14 or less, we would record stealth as +3 - it has the same result, in effect, you roll your dice and the target number (11) is modified by +3. The advantage of doing it this way though is that, if people DO want to flip the ususal way and roll HIGH, it is far more straightforward: you simply add the bonus to the roll rather than the target number (which changes to 10)

3. Bit of a radical one, but how about changing the target number for combat and skills to a basic 10 or less? There are several reasons why this could work:

a) Familiarity, 1 point, 8-, Competence 2 points 9-, Skilled, 3 points 10-
b) The break point then becomes 50/50 rather than 62.5%, so it makes more senses to have active defences - you are not at a disasdvantage. This may slow combat a little as there will be less hits, but is worth it IMO.
c) 10 is a more usere friendly number than 11.

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 05:37 AM

3. Ditch the various subcategories of Skill for Animal Handler and the like or at least make them optional.

JG

AFAIK, they are optional or you can freely drop them. In any event, I say make them optional if they aren't already. I like diverse skills and just because your a Horse Whisperer doesn't necessarily mean you can train dogs or big cats.

It would take the issue Hopcroft brought up above and make it somewhat worse I really dislike systems like Storyteller with insanely broad skills...

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 05:38 AM

How do you broaden or narrow a skill's base of influence (for example, you're a whiz at Poker but totally unfamiliar with other Gambling games)?

Allot of skills (Gambling, Animal Handler, etc) have subcategories

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 06:16 AM

Decoupling skills from characteristics.

I like the idea, and even though it may well make skills more expensive, that probably accurately reflects the increased time people actually spend acquiring skills at high level. Skill levels will substantially mitigate the cost of high skill lelves in many cases anyway, offset against the lack of any need to buy high INT, for example.

I'd also like to see more made of profession skills - if you are a cop then you probably know a whole range of skills at familiarity level without buying them: perhaps a slightly more expensive PS that allows a number of associated familiarities for free - a Skill Modifier of sorts?

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 06:18 AM

Allot of skills (Gambling, Animal Handler, etc) have subcategories

If all skills cost more (say 5 points each) then there would be a lot more room for characterisation with subcategories, secialisations and the like.

Jagged

Feb 18th, '08, 06:23 AM

If you change the basis of skills to be less related to characteristics how will you deal with everyman skill rolls?

What do you do in a general game when someone has to make a roll for a skill they don't have? As a ref I just make the roll against the most appropriate characteristic.

I think you are in danger of making skills too important and too inflexible.

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 06:26 AM

I would not want to see Skill decoupled from characteristics. Altering the balance would be okay but your native ability should have some impact on your performance. Otherwise you end up with things like Palladium where a person with who's functionally mentally handicapped is exactly as good a neurosurgeon as someone who's has slightly above average intellect (good IQ but not high enough to get a skill bonus).

mudpyr8

Feb 18th, '08, 06:43 AM

1. I like the language system as is - Hero is one of the few games that gets it when it comes to languages. I think adding an INT roll, at progressive penalties, when attempting to communicate a Fluency 3 concept to a Fluency 1 listener works well, providing a roll when needed, but not having a roll in general. My rule is if there is one level of difference, the listener makes an INT roll to comprehend (possibly complimented by the speaker's INT if he is aware of the communication gap), and then -3 per level of difference after that.

2. Unify CV and Skill progression. This also ties into your combat comment about wanting to have more of an 11 + OCV = attack skill. Here's what I suggest:

a. Every characteristic has a "Roll Mod" = CHAR/3.
b. Base target is 8- + Roll Mod - Difficulty.
c. Difficulty is DCV, ECV, or DIFF where DIFF = the difficulty of the task. An average, professional level task is a DIFF of -3. Easy would be +0, just like attacking a target of DCV 0. Every 3 levels of difficulty then reflects an order of expertise better (so, expert is -6, master is -9, grand master is -12, legendary is -15, etc.).
d. Each level of skill adds to your roll. The first 3 levels cost 1 point, the next 3 cost 2 points, the next 3 cost 3 points, etc. So, learning Breakfall at +3 with a DEX of 10 (Roll Mod +3) gets you an overall roll of 14-. However, the average task is a -3, so the net result is an 11-, just like now. There are a couple of pluses here as well:
d.1. Roll Mods can be applied as passive difficulty, like DCV. If the above skill were Stealth with a roll of 14-, the character would need to make the roll by the PER Roll Mod of the enemy. If the enemy were actively scanning for the characters you could use the same mechanic as Block, which would be PER vs. Stealth Mod - failure and the stealthy character still has to make it by their passive PER Roll Mod, success and, like a Block, the character is spotted.
d.2. This allows you to use the same modifiers for combat such as blind and so on with regular skills. Additionally, you can allow "casual skill use" at 1/2 value (or a flat -3) to do things in a casual manner

I think this provides more granularity in the skill system, which is something you were looking for and unifies the skill and combat rolls. There are many approaches to how this could be codified or presented, especially if you want to set the baseline at 0 instead of 3, but the gist is the same.

Thanks.

mudpyr8

Feb 18th, '08, 06:46 AM

Oh, I forgot to mention, although I'm sure you can infer from the above. This eliminates familiarities. In order to be skilled you have to invest 3 points in a skill, so investing 1pt gives you that skill at a -2. Skills which allow untrained use (weapons, certain everyman skills) would then essentially default to 8- (or a -3 penalty essentially), and other skills (breakfall, acrobatics, etc.) simply couldn't be attempted untrained.

steamteck

Feb 18th, '08, 07:02 AM

StGrimblefig

Feb 18th, '08, 08:46 AM

Here are my suggestions:

Keep the skills based on Characteristics, but decouple them from point recursion -- by that I mean that the initial value of the skill is based on the Characteristic, but the skill is not automatically improved by later improving the Characteristic that it is based upon. You have to buy skill levels to improve the skill, always.

Bring combat more in-line with the skill system. It is already very similar to an opposed skill roll, but the basic combat "skill" is different and confusing for new players. Instead of a Weapon Familiarity skill, make it a Combat skill, with subcategories for the different weapon types. Then Combat Skill Levels make more sense, because they modify the Combat skill.

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

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

Familiarities should be used for Information about the skill domain, not as a cheap "Hail Mary" skill replacement. Just because you may have read something about bombs on the internet does not give you the ability to defuse one.

Thanks for listening.

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 08:48 AM

I agree keep skills linked to characteristics. Models heroic fiction outstandingly.

Is that cause or effect? I know a lot of science skills and I'm really smart. Sure being really smart gives you a good reason for buying lots of science skills, but Hero is fundamentally (at the moment) a system that relies on point balance.

The characteristics that deal with skills are DEX, INT and PRE. Decouple them, adjust the charatceristic price if you like, but then build skill bonuses in as talents: Good with people - +2 SLs with interaction skills (10 points).

It is not even necessarily going to be more expensive than currently.

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 08:51 AM

Tell you what I would like to see: resistance skills. At present, if someone engages you in conversation it is unclear what you oppose that with. It would be nice to have a skill to do that with: Dissembling, perhaps.

Also I'd like to see interaction skills for bluffing (rather than hashing it with acting) and intimidation (rather than having to use interrogation). They seem sufficiently different to warrant their inclusion.

steamteck

Feb 18th, '08, 09:15 AM

Is that cause or effect? I know a lot of science skills and I'm really smart. Sure being really smart gives you a good reason for buying lots of science skills, but Hero is fundamentally (at the moment) a system that relies on point balance.

The characteristics that deal with skills are DEX, INT and PRE. Decouple them, adjust the charatceristic price if you like, but then build skill bonuses in as talents: Good with people - +2 SLs with interaction skills (10 points).

It is not even necessarily going to be more expensive than currently.

See Enforcer's example of Spider-Man. Base talent gives him high acrobatics.Well we'll never agree on this. I will say all this decoupling stuff is a deal breaker for me and leave it at that.

eternal_sage

Feb 18th, '08, 09:19 AM

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

mo'definately! a skill should be 3 points for a Char based roll (2 points for those KS/PS/SS etc) and 2 points per +1 bonus. things like Two Weapon Fighting are not skills, imho, because they are not rolled. they are talents, and should be moved there. if you roll it, its a skill, and they should all be costed the same.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

depends on if you split DEX and CV, but i say yes, and towards cheaper as a point of CV is roughly 3 points (you get 1 point of CV per 9 DEX, 1 point of SPD for 9 DEX "close enough" and the benefits of initiative from actually buying up DEX +3) so that an overall level should be roughly 3 points, imho, but maybe 4 because it can be turned into DAM, which base CV cannot.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

yes. they are not skills, nor talents, nor perks, they are a special entity unto themselves, and should be treated so. i don't think they need to be altered in one direction or the other as far as costing, etc, but i do believe they need to be upgraded to a unique position along with Char, Skills, Perks, and Talents.

eternal_sage

Feb 18th, '08, 09:34 AM

also, (having now read others comments) i agree that we need a Balance skill (instead of Breakfall, which doesn't even follow, imho), an Intimidate (although PRE attacks work for that, i suppose), a Perception skill, (because it doesn't make any sense being tied to INT, see my CHAR posts), and possibly a few other skills being split apart.

Vondy

Feb 18th, '08, 10:05 AM

Things to consider:

1. Assuming we keep characteristic links to skills, change the break point to CHAR/3 rather than CHAR/5; this would bring the system for skills in line with the combat system, which is extremely flexible and user friendly IMO.

The probelm with this is that it will result in higher skill rolls overall. The problem with that is that we're operating on a bell-curve and in terms of probabilities, those increases of +1 to +2 will be much more dramatic in terms of impact that at first they appear. We tried this in my game.... it was a problem.

Edsel

Feb 18th, '08, 10:15 AM

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.
Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?[QUOTE]
No, keep them as they are.

[QUOTE]Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?
No. I like the current system.

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?
I am happy with the selection we have now. It is easy for the GM to add new skills if he thinks he needs them. I see no reason to mess with this much.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?
The only problem I see with CSL is that players try to abuse them unless the GM calls them down. For example, it is very tempting to spend 20 XP to buy +10 OCV with your favorite attack. This is simply a GM control issue. I suppose that you could institute some sort of an increasing cost structure. For instance +1 OCV costs 2 points, another +1 costs 4 points, the third +1 costs 6 points, etc. But I don't think that the added complexity is worth it. If the GM is running his game properly then this is a non-issue.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?
The write-up you referred to (TUS p216) is interesting. I would have no problems with it, but I don't feel strong either way.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?
I am pretty happy with them as they are now. I have heard some people decry the 5 point limit when designing maneuvers but I don't subscribe to that gripe. If you want a more capable maneuver then build it as a Power or Super Skill.

Blue

Feb 18th, '08, 10:18 AM

KS & PS. I think it would be easier to have "knowing" and "doing" be the same thing.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '08, 10:22 AM

KS & PS. I think it would be easier to have "knowing" and "doing" be the same thing.

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

Uhhh, that was just a gratuitous example.

1EyedJack

Feb 18th, '08, 10:32 AM

Some skills lend themselves to being linked to characteristics better than others. It is intutive that a smarter (higher INT) person should be better at math, but why should a high dex speedster be able to spend 3pts and be better at lockpicking than a normal who is a career safecracker who has spent 7 pts on the same skill. I think a good way to balance this issue is to have levels or degrees of mastery, and some uses of a skill reqiure a minium level of mastery, lable the levels of mastery how ever you like, keep the skills coupled to charateristic, now the speedster has alot of natural talent, but stands no chance of cracking a safe, but can get threw a key-lock like noones bussiness.

Vondy

Feb 18th, '08, 10:33 AM

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

I'm for it. The issue is partially the bell-curve. A 13- roll is actuall VERY GOOD and is the base roll for a characteristics of 18 or better. I frequently run into the problem that I have a character whose good at all skills for a particuliar characteristics when really their concept suggests they should have the high characteristics and be good at one or two of said skills, but only moderately competent with the others. This is doubly true of background skills (and I'm a hound with these) because you either get 11- as the default, or the stat roll, and no in-between. And that's something I would like to point out as well: for people who run skill and talent centric games there is no middle-ground and very little granularity with skills. I want more!!!!

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

I think it works okay, now. But one idea I toyed with was pricing all skills like animal handler, gambling, systems operation, etc. I don't think you need to go that far, but most skills do have potential sub-categories --- esp. background skills (see below).

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

I think the current list is.... okay. I would like to see Human Perception as a skill (or official talent), however. I've been unhappy with the presence based skill list (though its passable).

I would, however, like to make the following argument: instead of adding more skills, drop in many of the options from the utlimate skill (background skills, esp. languages) should probably be built with categories, etc.

Also, I think weapon and transport familiarities are way overpriced. I often end up with characters with tons of points in these areas and the actual utility doesn't match).

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

I prefer option three. I think they need some cleaning up, but a new chapter to do it is too much.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

I would like to see the nimrods shot and the language skill expressed in a manner consistent with other skills (perhaps using the category and subcategory method). The problem with this is: how will I express different levels of fluency.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

I'm going to speak heresy and say I don't like martial arts as they currently are. However, the system works and I don't think it needs to be changed. Its also pretty popular. I would like some options, however and think a sidebar is in order. I currently do martial arts as a combination of skills, skill levels, and talents. For instance, a judo expert might have:

Skill: Knowledge Skill Judo 13-
Skill: Breakfall 13-
Talent: Grappler +10 Strength Grab, Escape, Reversal, Throw.
+3 Levels with Grappling or Hand to Hand.

Other Talents Might Include:

Talent: Iron Fists and Lightning Feet +3d6 HA.
Talent: Death Blows and Rending Flesh 1d6 HKA, Not Vs. Resistant Def.

The reason I do this is because I don't like keeping track of maneuver modifiers to OCV and DCV, and because I find, with the exception of uniqe elements, the maneuvers can be streamlined conceptually. I admit this is a style issue, but I think its a valid option for a sidebar.

As for combo-maneuvers, it might actually give someone an excuse to use an MPA.

Just Joe

Feb 18th, '08, 10:46 AM

Regarding the link between skills and characteristics, I believe it is fairly realistic and certainly matches dramatic fiction. Keep in mind that the difference between, e.g., a 10 DEX character with 3 points in acrobatics and a 20 DEX character with 3 points in acrobatics is less than that between the former and someone with a familiarity.

I would, however, change familiarities and add a standard 2-point option. It seems to me that great natural aptitude should be at least as valuable for one with little training in a skill as for one with greater training. Consider something like:

1 point --> 5 + CHAR/5
2 points --> 7 + CHAR/5
3 points --> 9 + CHAR/5

. . . or combine the general principle with one or more of the changes suggested by others above to achieve something roughly equivalent.

On a similar note, I would make MA less "all or nothing". IMO, a character should be able to buy, e.g., a cheaper offensive strike that does only +1d6 or +2d6 on the way to the "real thing".

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 11:21 AM

Is that cause or effect? I know a lot of science skills and I'm really smart. Sure being really smart gives you a good reason for buying lots of science skills, but Hero is fundamentally (at the moment) a system that relies on point balance.

The characteristics that deal with skills are DEX, INT and PRE. Decouple them, adjust the charatceristic price if you like, but then build skill bonuses in as talents: Good with people - +2 SLs with interaction skills (10 points).

It is not even necessarily going to be more expensive than currently.
That just makes things more and more expensive. And we have a mechanic for 'Good with people' it's called Presence.

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 11:38 AM

See Enforcer's example of Spider-Man. Base talent gives him high acrobatics.Well we'll never agree on this. I will say all this decoupling stuff is a deal breaker for me and leave it at that.

I'm wondering that if Int has no relation to your skills and no longer affects Per. Why buy it up or have it as a characteristic at all? All Intellect does is effect skills and perception.

Tom Carman

Feb 18th, '08, 11:40 AM

I'd just like to note that I don't care for the GURPSification I see in a number of Edition 6 suggested changes to skills and characteristics (which are all I've read thus far). Between figured stats and stat-based skills, it has been possible in HERO to create versatile and competent characters on not-so-terribly-many points. OK, so there are similar builds, thanks to breakpoints, and the granularity is not all that it might be. But I like that better than the GURPS tendency to finely-divide the skills list, and price every buy depending on how easy or hard that particular skill might be. I wouldn't like to need bags'n'bags o'points to build anything and everything. Rant over; carry on.

But first a contribution to the discussion; my head goes foggy when gaming past 11 PM, and some people are worse off than me... I prefer a roll-high variant, adding a char-bonus (of char/5) to 3d6 against a base target number (plus or minus the GM's difficulty modifiers). Combat rolls of OCV+3d6 >= DCV+10 works well in the wee hours. I see the point about being unreasonably good at a difficult skill purely because of a high characteristic (example: pickpicking with a high Dex). It might be good to bring back General Skills for these types of skill.

Vondy

Feb 18th, '08, 11:51 AM

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

Uhhh, that was just a gratuitous example.

I've broken my character sheets down into:

Do:

Know:

Speak:

It works pretty well. The only issue is that some skills are borderline in terms of do or know. In general I put professional skills and science skills down as full skills on the "do" list and knowledge skills on the know list.

StGrimblefig

Feb 18th, '08, 12:18 PM

[I recently posted this to my hero blog, and received a comment that I should post it to this discussion, so here it is.]

(Over)Simplified Skills for the HERO System

The HERO System's skills are good, but they do seem a bit complicated for new players. In the interest of making life easier for those who wish to learn our favorite RPG, I present the following oversimplification. This is based upon more "open-ended," or "rules light" systems (for example, RISUS). In these systems, lists and descriptions of skills are avoided, in favor of letting the genre and the players define what they mean.

The general mechanics of the system remain the same as in 5ed, with the few changes listed below.

There are four (4) classes of skills,

Characteristic - These are active skills that generally must be practiced to be learned or improved. These skills use the normal 9+(CHAR/5) or less base roll.

Background - These skills are things learned from being immersed in them or studying them over a period of time. (includes Knowledge/Science/Professional skills) These skills use a base 11 or less roll.

Combat - Proficiency at fighting is separate from the purely physical skills they appear to embody. Many of these are skill levels that do not have their own roll, but modify other rolls.

Special - Skills that don't fit anywhere above. These tend to be campaign-specific skills, like the Power skill for Champions, or the Spell (or Magic) skill for Fantasy Hero.

The GM may create a list of acceptable skills for each of the skill categories above, but the bottom line is that any skill that a character comes up with and obtains GM approval for is acceptable. The flip side of the coin is that it is up to the GM to decide what uses the skill is appropriate for.

The Characteristic-based skills are especially noteworthy. Theoretically, anything that you are asked to make a CHAR roll for can be trained into a skill. For example, the perception roll is used to notice something. People in certain activities/professions do actually practice noticing things and can get better at it. The perception roll already looks like a skill roll -- 9+(INT/5) or less -- so it is easy to formally turn it into a skill. Yes, this would replace the "enhanced perception" power for normal sight/hearing.

Note also, that under this scheme, we are not limited to Characteristic-based skills being based solely on DEX, INT and PRE. There could just as easily be skills based on STR, or EGO. Especially, as stated above, those things for which you may be asked to make STR rolls or EGO rolls.

In the interest of removing point recursion (a major factor of new player confusion), I hereby suggest that your base level for any skill is set at character creation. Improving the characteristic upon which the skill is based does not automatically improve your ability with the skill. You have to buy skill levels to improve the skill.

Something that should go along with this scheme is a negative modifier for attempting something without using an appropriate skill. So, if you are trying to jump off that building and land safely on the canopy below, and you do not have the Acrobatics skill, there should be a negative modifier. Any training in an appropriate skill removes the negative modifier.

Thanks for your attention.

Vondy

Feb 18th, '08, 12:58 PM

I'm wondering that if Int has no relation to your skills and no longer affects Per. Why buy it up or have it as a characteristic at all? All Intellect does is effect skills and perception.

I think, defined as such, its not necessary.

A player with a character ten times as smart as he is won't play the character ten times as smart. And some smart players have a difficult time thinking down to their dumber character's level. In terms of game effect all Int is is skills and perception, so why not just have skills and perception?

misterdeath

Feb 18th, '08, 01:03 PM

misterdeath

Feb 18th, '08, 01:33 PM

Oh, yeah, and fragging with Martial Arts is my deal breaker; the point at which I go, "I'll buy it when pigs fly."

Everyone's got one, and that's mine.

D

incrdbil

Feb 18th, '08, 01:43 PM

Removing INT is too heretical. it makes no sense. Though players canot think liek a character smarter than they are, they ca use the stats and related skills to simulate the workings of a smarter character in the universe, much like the rules alow a 90 pound weakling to play a super strong character. Removing INT and just letting skilsl and levels portray it fails the crucual 'can still do anything' system test', as it will take away the ability to play someone who is a quick thinker, regardless of their level of education or training.

Vondy

Feb 18th, '08, 01:49 PM

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 02:08 PM

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?
Reduce, for the love of God.

incrdbil

Feb 18th, '08, 02:17 PM

But that's the point: the system can do anything, but aside from factoring into skills and perception intelligence has nothing. Why have a metric that doesn't actually measure or do anything?

Is measuring the difference between characters intelligence somethign that players and GM desire? Certainly. That alone justifies it. A character's mental characteristics are essential to defiing the character. Every serious game system out there does it. Ignore it, and players will immediately be put off.

Maybe thats a reason to have INT do more, but eliminating it is far to radical for no benefit.

DreadDomain

Feb 18th, '08, 02:20 PM

nexus

Feb 18th, '08, 02:30 PM

re: number of skills in the corebook.

I think that the current number is practically perfect. There's a generous list of basic skills that are useful across a wide range of genres and gaps can usually be filled with KS, PS and SS skills. I can't think of any that should be dropped or added off hand.

StGrimblefig

Feb 18th, '08, 02:33 PM

DreadDomain

Feb 18th, '08, 02:38 PM

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

As I said in the Characteristics thread, I wouldn't mind that BUT I would also point out how to base them on CHAR and show how it would affect the CHAR point cost. Kind of like :

Skills base model
Untrained 6- 0 points
Familiarity 8- 1 points
Adv Familiarity 9- 2 points
Competent 10- 3 points
Per +1 2 points

As a campaign option, Competent level for Agility Skills could be based of 7+DEX/3 instead of a straight 10-. This increase the cost of DEX by +1 by level. Same can be donne to other Skill Categories.

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

Personally I'd like that but I can live without.

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

The skill list is fine by me (PLEASE DO NOT REDUCE IT!). Make sure to add the skills from Ultimate Skill.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

A hard one. I would at least make sure that the costs are well balanced with DEX end EGO (if used as bases for CVs). As it is, it is often less expensive to bring up DEX than to specialize with CV levels.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

I like both options.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

Tru, MA art cost effective. I have never seen a problem with that though as they are not THAT cost effective.

misterdeath

Feb 18th, '08, 03:49 PM

Well, since INT is defined as the ability to process information quickly (which is why it controls PER, processing your visual information and "noticing" something), there could be a number of INT rolls that are not necessarily defined in the core rules. Most of the time, INT is interpreted within the framework of the skills that apply to the data -- processing data through the "filter" represented by the skill, so to speak.

What about searching for information regarding a skill your character does not posses? Is that not a use for INT? Or making sense of data that does not have an obvious context to which you can apply your skills (i.e. trying to determine the correct skill to apply to the data)? Leaps of intuition?

All good used for Int as it's currently defined.

But I've always failed to see how my speed of processing tells me how much I know about programming computers, say. How much I know about Kung Fu?

Int kinda either needs to be changed to "mental processing power" and then Perception needs to be yanked, or Int needs to stay mental processing speed, and some of the skills go away.

Or, it needs to go away, and you should just buy everything separately. This has the advantage while, as incrdbil says "people like to compare Intelligence," nobody actually can provide a good definition that fits all the cases we try to shoehorn into Intelligence.

Intelligence ends up being the Pornography of the Characteristics, "I can't define it, but know it when I see it." It seems to me to be somehow in a system as crunchy as Hero is, that Intelligence is such a fluffy game concept, and something should be done with it.

D

BobGreenwade

Feb 18th, '08, 05:02 PM

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?I kind of like this aspect of the system as it is. However, I do think there could be some way of creating "sub-categories" within the various categories, or possibly make more Willpower Skills, or some other way of creating greater variation.
Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?I think you're on the money here, Steve. As attractive as the idea seems on the surface, it works best as-is. The only possible exception might be in Languages, which could be treated as Background Skills (as discussed below).Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?I think you have a pretty good list on the whole. I'd feel very happy if you were to add Feint, Instructor, and Research, since they have some pretty broad usages; and possibly the Willpower Skills from TUM, especially if you can allow non-mentalist uses, just to give a little more variety to the types of Skills in the system (as mentioned above).Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?A little, not a lot. I like the CSLs as they exist now, but I do recognize that that part of the system needs tweaking.Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?I'd prefer them as INT-based Background Skills.Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?No. I think this system is fine as it is.

Southern Cross

Feb 18th, '08, 06:02 PM

I'm with Bob Gillen & MisterDeath on redesigning the costs of CHAR-based skills.As for steamlining the various Combat Skill levels,why not treat them as Limitations (and Advantages) to 5 point Combat Skill Levels.

Steve Long

Feb 18th, '08, 06:21 PM

Now, I love the language chart and how it functions, but a large number of languages are simply not represented

If you're interested in this subject, see The Ultimate Skill, which has a Language Familiarity Table six pages long. The one in the main book is not going to get any larger; the vast majority of gamers don't need a lot of (or often any) African, Australian, obscure Asian, or Amerind languages. I love having the big chart as a TUS option (languages being a subject that interests me), but I think the table in the main book is plenty for that book.

buzz

Feb 18th, '08, 06:37 PM

Three things:

First, I would definitely like to see a system of "skill challenges" a la the Dramatic Conflicts mechanics from Spycraft 2.0. Basically, extended resolution for iconic uses of various skills, such as computer hacking, interrogation, seduction, chases, etc.

See, my biggest beef with The Ultimate Skill was that while it provided a truckload of data about the various skills, it didn't actually make the skills any more interesting to use. It still came down to the GM looking up a modifier, and then you roll a simple pass/fail.

I don't need real-world data about the skills. What I need are mechanics that make them really fun to use. Especially in Heroic genres. Heroic genres typically downplay the powers system, and without the powers, HERO can get pretty blah. Making skill use more robust (not complicated) would make the game a lot more fun, IMO.

Second, I'd prefer that the KS and SS skills were a little less open-ended. I've had experiences where a player had an obscure, self-created KS (e.g., "Technomancy") that would mostly get ignored by the GM. He'd dismiss it as not the right skill for a related situation, but then not really indicate what the available or appropriate skills would be. This really made me miss the pre-defined Knowledge skills in D&D.

Third, and this is a long-shot: Player's should be able to use their PC's KS/SS/CuK/etc skills to introduce new facts into play. E.g.:

GM: "The priest of Kar-Foo refuses to let you enter the sacred temple."
Player 1: "We need to get in there!"
Player 2: "Hmm... I think there's a certain admittance blessing detailed in their holy book. I have KS: Evil Cults."
GM: "Okay... that's a roll at -2."
Player 2 (rolls): "I made it by 1, then."
GM: "Yes, you do remember that there is such a blessing, and it will get you in."
Player 1: "Sweet!"
GM: "Of course, it's blasphemy to perform it under the noon sun..."
Player 2: "Guess, we'll have to wait."

And so on.

incrdbil

Feb 18th, '08, 06:57 PM

But I've always failed to see how my speed of processing tells me how much I know about programming computers, say. How much I know about Kung Fu?

Well, using the costs of skills, for the equal expenditure of XP which can reflect amount of effort directed toward learnign a skillm the guy with the superior INT has managed to learn more than a character with a lower INT. The other person could work harder, study longer to get to that level (spend more points on the skill roll) if they wish to equal them. Some things just come easier to people, and the INT stat is a great way to show that in a simple matter. Worrying about definitions and such runs counter to intuitive gamer logic.

BobGreenwade

Feb 18th, '08, 09:13 PM

Perhaps some differentiation among Skills can be had by varying how strongly they're affected by their respective Characteristics.

Normal: 9 + CHA/5
Moderate: 8 + CHA/3
Strong: 6 + CHA/2

Probably impractical, but it's a thought.

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 09:16 PM

But that's the point: the system can do anything, but aside from factoring into skills and perception intelligence has nothing. Why have a metric that doesn't actually measure or do anything?

That could be said of any of the characteristics if you take away their mechanics I think.

Aside from Lifting and Damage, why have STR?
Aside from Skills and Combat why have DEX?

...or I could be reading you wrong.
Seems someone stole my INT stat :)

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 09:23 PM

Three things:

First, I would definitely like to see a system of "skill challenges" a la the Dramatic Conflicts mechanics from Spycraft 2.0. Basically, extended resolution for iconic uses of various skills, such as computer hacking, interrogation, seduction, chases, etc.

See, my biggest beef with The Ultimate Skill was that while it provided a truckload of data about the various skills, it didn't actually make the skills any more interesting to use. It still came down to the GM looking up a modifier, and then you roll a simple pass/fail.

I don't need real-world data about the skills. What I need are mechanics that make them really fun to use. Especially in Heroic genres. Heroic genres typically downplay the powers system, and without the powers, HERO can get pretty blah. Making skill use more robust (not complicated) would make the game a lot more fun, IMO.

never tried Spycraft so I'll not discuss.

Second, I'd prefer that the KS and SS skills were a little less open-ended. I've had experiences where a player had an obscure, self-created KS (e.g., "Technomancy") that would mostly get ignored by the GM. He'd dismiss it as not the right skill for a related situation, but then not really indicate what the available or appropriate skills would be. This really made me miss the pre-defined Knowledge skills in D&D.
Never had a problem with this. GM's and Players should have a rough idea what the character's knowledge strengths are. I'm not sure I am too keen on Steve's 0 pts for Italian Literature 17- since its so obscure, but perhaps a mechanic for the esoteric skills that makes them less costly would be a design idea.

Third, and this is a long-shot: Player's should be able to use their PC's KS/SS/CuK/etc skills to introduce new facts into play. E.g.:

GM: "The priest of Kar-Foo refuses to let you enter the sacred temple."
Player 1: "We need to get in there!"
Player 2: "Hmm... I think there's a certain admittance blessing detailed in their holy book. I have KS: Evil Cults."
GM: "Okay... that's a roll at -2."
Player 2 (rolls): "I made it by 1, then."
GM: "Yes, you do remember that there is such a blessing, and it will get you in."
Player 1: "Sweet!"
GM: "Of course, it's blasphemy to perform it under the noon sun..."
Player 2: "Guess, we'll have to wait."

And so on.

That -already happens. That's kind of what they're there for. Unless I am badly misreading your request/example.

TSandman

Feb 18th, '08, 09:27 PM

But as it stands in the HERO System, it’s easy to look at things and assume that for 3 points, you can buy a roll that lets a character succeed well over 50% of the time based on natural aptitude alone (i.e., a Characteristic-based roll).

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that if you paid 3 pts to buy a skill roll, it was because you were basically trained in that skill, permitting you to put your natural aptitude to use on that particular skill. Was I misunderstanding something?

Or is it that you are finding a 50% chance of success at a normal task under normal circumstances, without undue stress or adverse condition too high for a character with basic training?

I myself do not find that too high if you compare to many other gaming systems (ie: D20 where a simple DC15 is average difficulty or nWoD where you only need a single success on a roll wich you could have LOTS of dice for)

50% is on the low side unless you're playing Dark-and-Gritty/ realistic/simulation, but it can be helped with a few points.

I like skill rolls when you can succeed but not when you can't fail either (ever seen Hide +22 at lvl 5 in D&D?) Character shouldn't have to over-specialize either.

My 0.2 pts

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:35 PM

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

Steve’s Thoughts: TUS 216 raises this possibility, and it’s not without some attraction (there’s some concern nimrods would think that means you have to make a roll to speak all the time — but we don’t want to try to design rules to be nimrod-proof, it’s an exercise in futility).

I think the nimrods are used to percentile-based systems where failing a language roll in your native tongue is a real possibility. :eg:

jg

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:42 PM

The Monster

Feb 18th, '08, 10:46 PM

I'll put in my voice for the skill system pretty much as is - linked to stats, list is OK, roll-low is ok.

I really appreciate how Hero provides a link between stats and skills without the problem I ran into with GURPS: when I ran a one-shot event years ago, I had a character with an 18 INT (extremely high in GURPS, to be sure!). The problem I had was, since GURPS uses the same roll for general INT as the skill (with simple +/- for skills levels), the guy was *by default* an expert at just about every INT skill in the book! I much prefer the Hero modifier, where INT does give a significant bonus, but doesn't apply at a 1:1 increase. I also like, in much the same way, how a high INT provides a better PER check. It fits with what I observe in real life - generally, people who are brighter and think quicker tend to notice things quicker, given similar training, experience, age, etc. Again, in influence but not a direct determinant. It's one of the first things that I noticed about Hero (waaaay back when!) that stood out for me.

To change from roll-low to roll-high would really not be Hero any more, at least for me. It would be something else, not the system I've known and loved for decades. I can appreciate the potential gain from such a change (mostly in intuitiveness, as far as I can see), I might even learn to enjoy the system, but it just wouldn't be the same.

The one idea on the skill list mentioned so far that I can agree with is a distinctive "Use Computer" skill, as opposed to programming. Though, upon consideration, it might be that it is just fine to cover it with a PS (it would be nice to have that mentioned explicitly, and included in modern everyman skills, for example).

I would like to see more actual system effects for the interpersonal skills - but I'll have to think about that, and maybe post on another thread (or maybe even start one!).

I will say that the idea of a sixth edition in general would be alot more unnerving if Steve Long weren't at the helm. He's done such good work over the last several years that I actually look forward to seeing what develops.

Victim

Feb 19th, '08, 01:33 AM

I'm not fond of infinitely expanding skills like KS, PS, and SS. While useful for defining many specific things, I think they also serve to inflate the costs of many characters. The cost of competency is mostly a function of how finely a given group breaks down these skills. I'd much rather see fewer broader categories for many of these skills. More widely competent characters falls under the dramatic realism with its heroic characters, IMO.

I think that on the whole, skills should be 'cheaper' - whether via consolidating the skill list, reducing the cost of skills, increasing the cost of other things, etc. Currently, many skills can be done better with a superskill power - or just with a normal power too.

My opinion is that skills should have obvious utility for their cost compared to other parts of the system. While there are naturally going to be variable factors based the campaign style and such, many skills are completely dependent on the GM to come up.

Vondy

Feb 19th, '08, 02:03 AM

That could be said of any of the characteristics if you take away their mechanics I think.

Aside from Lifting and Damage, why have STR?
Aside from Skills and Combat why have DEX?

...or I could be reading you wrong.
Seems someone stole my INT stat :)

I agree, but some characteristics are more tied into mechanics than other characteristics. This is why COM frequently comes up as a candidate for being removed. It can be a complimentary roll for interaction rolls, and I suppose someone might call for a straight COM roll (In two decades I haven't seen one), but in terms of mechanics, or even practical effect, what does it do? Not much. Thats the issue with removing characteristics from skill rolls and perception and INT. DEX and PRE both have other mechanics (important ones) they impact, as does STR, CON, and BDY. Those stats have overt effects on the game world. INT, however, only impacts the system in discreet ways that, if removed, render it an empty metric with no utility beyond "I paid points to say my character is a genius while getting no practical use from it." I have seen people call for raw INT checks (memory, etc), but its usually pretty rare, and since we have skills like deduction that require INT be less useful than the skill people paid points for, its had to take a skill that's been decoupled from skills and perceptions and give it much utility. My point is, while its traditional to have an intelligence metric - and I do love tradition - its pretty lame (and nobody will dump points into it) to have one that doesn't do anything. It will get relegated, in terms of usefulness, to where COM is in the current system (but cost more). A useful complimentary roll or occassional memory check? Not really worth it at that point.

Now, I like the idea of decoupling stats from skills because I get locked into all or nothing skill sets with the current system. I would be of a different mind if I was presented with different methods of buying all skills. For instance, I can purchase background skills (which need to be renamed IMO) either as stat based or the 2/1 model. Why can't I apply that choice to all skills?! I should be able to purchase acrobatics as a characteristics based skill, or at an 11- with a 2/1 model. That may break down as you dump more points into a skill and need to be tweaked for actual play, but it would

1) streamline skill purchasing mechanics somewhat
2) be in the spirit of toolkitting and provide people with choices
3) fix the perceived problems with granularity and modelling certain concepts
4) not impact the way the system functions at run time in the least.

Given that option, INT would still have active utility for those who wanted to leverage it and would be worth keeping. At the same time, it gives an elegant fix (if I don't say so myself) for modelling problems some people have encountered, and still leaves decoupling it from perception on the table.

Supreme Serpent

Feb 19th, '08, 07:59 AM

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: It has been suggested that Martial Arts are too cheap for what they give you — that buying the equivalent to Martial Strike as, say, HA plus CSLs would cost more than the Martial Maneuver does. While there may be some technical truth to this, I don’t think that Martial Arts are unbalanced or cause any particular game problems, so I see no need to change them.

I don't think they're a big system problem, but I think the current system is largely unnecessary and adds an unnecessary layer of 'preconstructed powers'. 90% of what's done with MA can just as easily be done with levels and buying damage dice or limited STR. The other 10% should have some form of non-martial option anyways.

steamteck

Feb 19th, '08, 08:10 AM

I don't think they're a big system problem, but I think the current system is largely unnecessary and adds an unnecessary layer of 'preconstructed powers'. 90% of what's done with MA can just as easily be done with levels and buying damage dice or limited STR. The other 10% should have some form of non-martial option anyways.

Maybe , but I really like the feel and flavor of the martial arts. Having the maneuvers also makes it easier to run and make different styles unique as a GM for me.

The Monster

Feb 19th, '08, 09:33 AM

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

JohnTaber

Feb 19th, '08, 10:38 AM

Hi Gang: Oh boy...this is fun. Got a simple one.

Suggestions = Change the definitions of Concealment and Stealth so it is clear when each is used. Stealth is used for hiding yourself. Concealment is used for hiding objects.

Reasoning = This simple change avoids the current problem of using Concealment when you are not moving and Stealth when you are moving. It also means characters can buy Stealth OR Concealment to drive the focus they want to achieve.

archermoo

Feb 19th, '08, 10:47 AM

c) 10 is a more usere friendly number than 11.

Ur? How do you figure?

MorpheousXO

Feb 19th, '08, 11:17 AM

Little thing, I think that Seduction should act like it does in TUS, and that it should be renamed to something more fitting like diplomacy (or something else that fits better).

Vondy

Feb 19th, '08, 12:00 PM

Ur? How do you figure?

I remember, in the fourth grade, there were kids who just didn't get the 11's table. Sure, it has a nice, consistent form and should, in theory, be easy, but there they were, looking froward and suspicious as though some nasty trick had been played on them. And, perhaps it had. It works on base ten, but its one more than ten.... aaaaaagh! More seriously, ten is a nice round number. Its aesthetically pleasing. Its has a cultured air. Whereas, eleven is not only odd, but it is neither a three nor a five. And try to count to eleven on two hands. You can't unless you have three hands, and if you have three hands you are simply not to be trusted. Who has three hands? Right there, eleven is out. You see, if you roll eleven and you add ten you get twenty one, but if you add another eleven you have twenty two, and there you are on that dubious elevens table again. Still, at least they aren't fractions or decimal places. I mean those numbers are irrational. They make no sense. I'm supposed to believe the presence of some shifty punctuation or a spontaeously scribbled diagonal line means that four and three are actually 4/3, which is really 1 and 1/3, which is really such a leap of faith that one might accuse mathematicians of being, if not irrational, patently religious. Let us not even follow that argument through into some concepts of the calculus! I say to you... ten: gooooooood. eleven: untrustworthy!

MorpheousXO

Feb 19th, '08, 12:03 PM

I remember, in the fourth grade, there were kids who just didn't get the 11's table. Sure, it has a nice, consistent form and should, in theory, be easy, but there they were, looking froward and suspicious as though some nasty trick had been played on them. And, perhaps it had. It works on base ten, but its one more than ten.... aaaaaagh! More seriously, ten is a nice round number. Its aesthetically pleasing. Its has a cultured air. Whereas, eleven is not only odd, but it is neither a three nor a five. And try to count to eleven on two hands. You can't unless you have three hands, and if you have three hands you are simply not to be trusted. Who has three hands? Right there, eleven is out. You see, if you roll eleven and you add ten you get twenty one, but if you add another eleven you have twenty two, and there you are on that dubious elevens table again. Still, at least they aren't fractions or decimal places. I mean those numbers are irrational. They make no sense. I'm supposed to believe the presence of some shifty punctuation or a spontaeously scribbled diagonal line means that four and three are actually 4/3, which is really 1 and 1/3, which is really such a leap of faith that one might accuse mathematicians of being, if not irrational, patently religious. Let us not even follow that argument through into some concepts of the calculus! I say to you... ten: gooooooood. eleven: untrustworthy!

I owe you rep cause there's been too much good stuff written today, can't rep anymore. :drink:

GloryFox

Feb 19th, '08, 12:43 PM

This is a quick reply, I honestly like how the skills are right now. It has been a great selling point on converting some disenfranchised GURPS players to HERO system. The rules are easy to follow.

However....

I have only one complaint but I have resolved this as a house rule.

Overall skill levels should only apply to skills not combat.
There done I said it.... KTHXBYE

Vondy

Feb 19th, '08, 12:46 PM

Overall skill levels should only apply to skills not combat.
There done I said it.... KTHXBYE

There's an eight point level that already applies to all non-combat skills.

The ten point level is a step up from that (which is why some people hate, or at least, cap them).

GloryFox

Feb 19th, '08, 12:58 PM

Yes 2 points more to add Overall Combat to the list is very cheap IMO. Should be eliminated but as I said that is something you can do as a house rule. Not something to make a whole 6th ed game from.

MicroMike

Feb 19th, '08, 01:44 PM

Please add Music Familiarity to the list of skills.

Expand Systems Operation to include Computer use.

Give Martial Arts it's own area, because a book about one 'skill' deserves it.

Define what to roll if you don't have the skill. TUS recommends 6-

Remove characterists from skills. It is too easy to (for example) Succor 10d6 (30pts) to INT or PER for a +6 with all those skills.

Consider this: Give all people (normals and superheros, etc) X amount of free non-combat skills. So you can take KS: Fine Wines 16- or PS: Cook 16- without feeling like you wasted 10 pts that could have bought +1 SPD or +10 STR.

pinecone

Feb 19th, '08, 03:00 PM

TSandman

Feb 19th, '08, 03:09 PM

The only thing I can add at this time is...maybe build some skill modifiers into the system...

So "Normal" these skills cost full cost
Umm.."Unusual" these cost -1 to cost
And ...er..."Exotic" these cost -2

So a KS: Supervillians is a "Normal" skill (often has utility)
KS: Viper might qualify as "Rare" (usefull, but only when Viper is involved)
and KS: Italian poetry of the middle ages is "Exotic" (almost useless...if you ever use it you'll be telling storys for years)

But every GM would have to defind what is Normal/Unusual/Exotic for their campaing and settings. Some players could also be quite fond of some skills and use them more than others would, making it "less exotic"... There is the trouble to have characters that can't really be compared if not made for the same setting, for the same GM... (since setting and GM style changes what is Exotic/Rare/Normal...)

mayapuppies

Feb 19th, '08, 03:17 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I am being swayed towards the "High is good" camp. In particular, using a Target Number system.

Make the Skills and Characteristics modify a die roll that seeks to equal or exceed a target number in order to succeed.

It's a rather large change, but one that allows for character growth and improvement for longer periods of time than a "Roll Low" system.

Of course, YMMV

Kenn

Feb 19th, '08, 03:24 PM

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

Steve’s Thoughts: The so-called “General Skills” were eliminated from 5E because they were an annoyance and illogicality in a system where most Skills derive their base roll from a Characteristic. However, it’s worth considering whether making all Skills non-Characteristic-based would improve the System. “Realistically,” I think that competence with most learned abilities come from study, training, practice, and experience — not innate aptitude, though innate aptitude can play a part. But as it stands in the HERO System, it’s easy to look at things and assume that for 3 points, you can buy a roll that lets a character succeed well over 50% of the time based on natural aptitude alone (i.e., a Characteristic-based roll).

Changing to a system where all Skills with rolls start at some predefined level and can be bought up from there would eliminate that, and also tend to increase character granularity/differentiation. It would also eliminate some of the reasons for buying Characteristics at the 3 and 8 “breakpoints” (see above).

However, it would probably mean characters would need to spend more points on Skills to reach the same level of competence, and that might entail increasing the amount of points characters are built on. It also tends to downplay the “dramatic simulation” aspects of the System, which are enhanced by letting characters have (relatively) high Skill Rolls cheaply. At present I don’t see that there’s enough benefit to make this change worthwhile.

No.

As someone who is a fast thinker and clumbsy, and has been his whole life I can say that the basing the skill on the characteristic makes sense. In school, I was able to spend less time studying/training and pick up intellect skills faster than my peers, but by the same token, I'd spend more practicing and training at sports, and I'd never do as well.

In short, my Intellect skills were higher because I have a reasonably higher INT and my Agility skills were lower because I have a lower DEX.

Study, training, practice, and experience are all important to increasing the amount of skill a person has, but innate aptitude helps (i.e. high characteristics). The thing to remember is that innate aptitude won't always be obvious. And well, a lot of people are average.

BobGreenwade

Feb 19th, '08, 03:55 PM

Please add Music Familiarity to the list of skills. If this is done (and I'm not sure it should be), please please please do not use the same table as in TUSk. It's just plain wretched. Putting English Horn and French Horn into a distinct category together is downright insulting to the intelligence of anyone who knows musical instruments -- it gave me a headache just looking at it.

Opal

Feb 19th, '08, 03:57 PM

The one point I really want to make on skills is that they should be relatively generic, finite in number, and definite in mechanics, with the exact details of how the PC accomplishes a task related to the skill left more or less up to the player. That is, they should fit the 'toolkit' aproach of the system a bit better.

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?No. Natural talent should always count for something - one of those somethings is that someone with talent can become good /much/ faster than someone who must struggle.

That a character with a good stat can get a good skill roll for 'only' 3 points is one of the positive features of the skill system.

Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?Yes and no. All skills shouldn't have the same cost, but the cost should be based on usefulness in adventuring - on how 'Heroic' they make you. The skills to be a highly skilled accountant should be pretty cheap compared to the skills needed to be a highly skilled detective, for instance - since Heros rarely need to go over balance sheets to save the day (rarely - not never ;) ). The skills to be a highly skilled martial artist or sniper, OTOH, as combat abilities, should cost more than the skills to e a highly skilled detective.

Also, the current skill system is too open-ended. Players and GMs can't agree upon how many detail skills it takes to model a level of competence. Should the 'skilled' computer programmer have Computer Programing or should he have 30 points of related knowledge and professional skills as well?

Currently, the system has been leaning towards the latter - "skill inflation" - with each passing suplement and edition you need to pour more points into skills to model the same concept.

Having skills be relatively generic, finite in number, and definite in mechanical effects - while customizeable in 'special effects' would be desireable, bringing them into line with the rest of the game. For instance, one skill might be 'Stealth,' covering the ability to avoid detection and resolved by a skill vs perception roll - be it sneaking up behind an orc in a shadowy dungeon, or hiding from terrorists in a cluttered warehouse, or concealing your code-being from a 'recongizer' in the CyberDimension. Levels could still be bought at higher or lower levels of detal, of course, just as CSLs are, though, presumably, at a lower cost, based on the cost of the skill.

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?Reduce. Radically. There should be a relatively small and difinitively finite set of fairly pricey (5 or even 10 point) skills that are genuinely useful in Heroic adventuring (and thus combat). Followed by a finite number of peripheral or background skills, each representing a fairly broad competency. Lower-point, player/GM defined detail skills should all be sub-sets of these higher point skills - things a character can take for flavor or a complementary roll, never something that you couldn't do with the broader, fixed skill list.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?Streamline a bit, perhaps. Really, I don't know why it got so complicated. I don't know why Martial Arts skill levels need to do more than other 3 pt skill levels, for instance, or why we need specific 'penalty skill levels.' But, I'm not complaining. I generally use 8 or even 10 pt levels, then

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?
I would hate to have to roll every time I use a language. On top of that languages have a very specific use in any game - determining if you can understand information being imparted on you or not. Champions generally costs things such that you can be really good at something for a reasonable cost - for what it accomplishes.

Languages let you recieve information. Not dig it up yourself or force it out of someone, just recieve it. They're a plot-advancing ability that maybe lets the character with that ability shine for a brief moment at a time (draw it out, and the role of 'translator' becomes annoying for all involved). Speaking languages does not have to be a complicated mechanic, nor should it be expensive. There should be an upper limit on the cost of being multilingual (Something like Universal translator). The option of having only a single language in a campaign or having a single universeal language (like a D&D common) or giving anyone a chance (like an INT) roll, to understand any language - rather the way the d6 Star Wars system worked, really - could be presented as options for GMs who don't want to fiddle around with languages as much.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?Martial Arts work. You can't buy just one manuever, and the minimum cost of a martial art prevents abuse. Martial Arts levels become something of a steal if you have a lot of manuevers, but that's somewhat self-correcting.

ajackson

Feb 19th, '08, 04:31 PM

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?
Only if Characteristics are removed from the game.

Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?
I don't see a major benefit here.

Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?
I've seen too many systems with skill bloat (GURPS, I'm looking at YOU). The current list seems pretty credible.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?
Well, OCV and DCV levels are easy to understand, and levels that can be split allow for some meaningful combat decisions that otherwise aren't possible, which is nice. The only skill levels I've seen abused heavily are 2 point and 10 point levels; everywhere else it's usually more efficient to buy Dex.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?
No. Just assume that your Intellect determines your language usage within your proficiency. A character who has native fluency in a language, but is stupid, will speak the language like a stupid native speaker.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?
I've seen two problems with martial arts:

In a low power game they're both too effective and too expensive; that martial kick boosting you from 2d6 to 6d6 is ridiculous. I solved that by reworking martial arts at 1p/maneuver (using 1st edition Ninja Hero to design moves; this was a long time ago) with a minimum cost of 5.
In a high power game, the first few maneuvers are very powerful, the marginal benefit from additional maneuvers is low. This means it's very tempting to buy just the minimum set of maneuvers (usually 3 maneuvers; typically some sort of trip/throw, a martial strike, and either block or dodge).

Deejmeister

Feb 19th, '08, 05:03 PM

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

A cool idea would be to make all skills "general skills" at 11- and have a separate CHA/5 bonus that could change depending on what you were doing with that skill at that particular moment. So you could have a situation where you would use Computer Programming and INT to crack the spaceship security program and in another situation you might use Computer Programming and EGO to keep your cool while trying to deactivate the self destruct program.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: 5ER 42-43 has a nice rundown of the five different “cost structures” for Skills in the HERO System.

I'd settle for the existing cost structures being applied consistently. Currently Navigation is a category skill with a different cost structure than other category skills, and Fast Draw is the only 3 point skill that must be purchased repeatedly for different categories of weapons. I can find no good reason for either of these skills not following the standard cost structures.

SuperPheemy

Feb 19th, '08, 06:08 PM

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

dstarfire

Feb 19th, '08, 07:21 PM

I'd like to see martial arts done up like the talents are: as limited powers that function slightly differently from powers, and have a distinctly different feel. There's been many a time where I wanted to tweak a manuever, or build somethign very similar to one, but just couldn't figure out the modifiers/mechanics to make a power into a manuever.

Also, they're way too easily abused.

Balabanto

Feb 19th, '08, 11:11 PM

I think most of the skills as they stand are fine, however, there are some issues that I have.

Complimentary Skills Ate My Plot!: Oh, god, I hate the things I have had to do to get these rules to function. No matter how many complimentary skills you have, the maximum bonus you should EVER be able to get is a 2.

I hate it when people do things like "We all pool our computer programming rolls and build a countervirus to beat his virus! We get a 38-. Is that mightier than what he got?"

The Language Chart needs to die: I think Languages should work like this:

Common Language: 2 Points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Uncommon Language: 3 Points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Rare Language: 4 points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Esoteric/Alien/Weird Language: 5 points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Linguist, of course, drops these all by one. The GM is the only one who determines how common the languages are. Imitating dialects should be the result of an ACTING roll, it should have nothing to do with how many points you pay into a language. You CAN still imitate a dialect and do it badly. (See Inspector Clouseau for more information)

Why do I say this? People who speak Japanese are REAL common in Japan, but not a lot of them probably speak Inje Inje, a central american tongue spoken by less than 500 persons.

The number of languages you speak should determine how many points you get as a reduction, with a minimum cost of 1, the more skilled you are at being a linguist, the better you are at recognizing phonemes, memes, and other linguistic structures.

This keeps the intent of the language chart without forcing you to make one, allows for genres other than "Modern" and forcing them to make their own language chart, and so on, plus, you don't need to spend a million points on languages so that you just say "!@#$$ this, I should have bought Universal Translator!" :)

Enforcer84

Feb 20th, '08, 12:15 AM

Ur? How do you figure?
0's put out while 1's tend to be frigid.

GamePhil

Feb 20th, '08, 04:16 AM

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

I wouldn't think so. If the concern is getting to good a roll for base cost, there are other ways around this, including starting at a lower base (7+INT/5, for example) or making skill penalties more common. I wouldn't recommend either for all games, though.

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

I actually think this would be pretty straightforward, something like:

1 is 8-
2 is 11-
3 is Char-roll
Skill with Categories subtracts a point from the cost and gives you one category, each category is +1 cost. Categories are optional and decided by the GM (that is, whether or not they are used for a given Skill, what categories are available, and so on).

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

I think a discussion about Background Skills might be useful. I think a lot of the time a bunch of Skills are bought that never come up during games, and I'd like to see that tendency reduced. It's something you mention in another thread, though.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

I think more could be done to reduce the cost of Languages, but again that might end up being included in the "Abilities That Give No Benefit Cost No Points" idea.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

Eh, maybe. I am fully comfortable with the cost of Martial Arts, it's like characters start with a small Multipower of Basic Maneuvers and Martial Arts Maneuvers are simply new slots for that invisible Multipower. What I am not comfortable with is adding another mechanic to the game to create something that can already be done otherwise. If Martial Arts were to be changed, I'd mainly like it to simply be more like building Powers (if you buy that "Maneuvers Are A Multipower" idea, buy them as Powers then divide by 10).

I also don't like how Martial Arts interact with MPA's, but that's another issue.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 20th, '08, 06:04 AM

Gideon

Feb 20th, '08, 07:24 AM

The Language Chart needs to die: I think Languages should work like this:

Common Language: 2 Points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Uncommon Language: 3 Points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Rare Language: 4 points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Esoteric/Alien/Weird Language: 5 points. You are considered fluent, and can read and write it.

Linguist, of course, drops these all by one. The GM is the only one who determines how common the languages are.I am sorry but I don't think this works at all. By your definition, if I live in New York City it is equally easy for me to be "Fluent" in English, Spanish, and Cantonese.

Plus your system does not take into account levels of proficiency with any given language or the possibility of being able to speak but not write a language (or vice versa).Imitating dialects should be the result of an ACTING roll, it should have nothing to do with how many points you pay into a language. You CAN still imitate a dialect and do it badly. (See Inspector Clouseau for more information)Ok, you are operating under a misconception. Dialect is NOT the same as accent.

A dialect is is a variety of a language characteristic of a particular group of the language's speakers. The term is applied most often to regional speech patterns.

An accent (in linguistics) is a manner of pronunciation of a language.

These are very different things. I can imitate an Australian accent but I am not speaking using an Australian dialect of English if I don't use the proper slang and terminology. Words like "battler", "billy", and "cactus" have incredibly different meanings to someone from Australia then they do to someone from New York City. And words like "cockie", "dux", and "ocker" simply don't exist in American English.

In Japan, both the spoken and written language changes depending on where you are in the country. Words, and spellings, used in Kyushu can be different from those used in Hokkaido.

The number of languages you speak should determine how many points you get as a reduction, with a minimum cost of 1, the more skilled you are at being a linguist, the better you are at recognizing phonemes, memes, and other linguistic structures.Except that languages that have no structural similarities should be harder to learn regardless of how many languages you already know.

Japanese (which I have taken classes in), not only has no words in common with English, but it has vastly different grammatical rules, sentence structure, and has three different alphabets (two of which use syllabic characters and one which is essentially pictographic). The language also has words that cannot translate.

IE: "Watashi wa Americajin desu.", which is simply the formal way of saying: "Americajin Desu." Translates to "I am an American." However if you break down the sentence Watashi means I, Americajin means American and Desu means am. "Wa" has no relation to any word in English. It does not mean "an".

Other languages like Hebrew, Zulu, and Iniktitut (the Inuit language) use sounds that don't exist in any European language.

I love the language chart, because it is the only language system used in an RPG that has any real basis in how languages really work.

mayapuppies

Feb 20th, '08, 07:51 AM

I'd like to second the keep the language chart thing. I use it extensively in my games and in my created game world. Too long have I suffered under the "Common" of D&D and with the the language chart I can finally accurately portray the languages in my worlds.

Well, accurate enough for me without being completely accurate and overly frustrating.

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 08:16 AM

Other languages like Hebrew... use sounds that don't exist in any European language.

Please name a sound in Hebrew that doesn't exist in any European language.

Gideon

Feb 20th, '08, 08:29 AM

Please name a sound in Hebrew that doesn't exist in any European language.

OK, I might be a little off here, but I didn't think that the gutteral ch sound (made by the letter cheit) existed in european languages other than Yiddish.

And still I think I got my point across even if I made one error.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 08:31 AM

watson

Feb 20th, '08, 09:23 AM

In my opinion, the problem with skills is that the paradigm is completely different from the rest of the book. Skills that are highly useful (e.g., Stealth) cost the same as skills that are rarely used (e.g., Animal Handling). In addition, skills are quite specialized rather than the typical HERO paradigm of generic -> specific.

In short, please, please reduce the skill list. As it stands now, the list has several redudant or confusing entries. Is Oratory really all that different from Persuasion? Trading from Bribery? Etc.

My suggestions are as follows:
Consolidate into one skill (Let's call it "Stealth") the following skills: Concealment, Stealth, Shadowing.

It really bothers me that to have a sneaky character, I need three different skills. All of which can apply to the same thing. Hiding for a short period of time? Stealth. Hiding for a long period of time? Concealment. Hiding while watching someone? Shadowing.

Consolidate into one skill (perhaps "Influence") the following skills: Persuade, Trading, Conversation, Seduction, High Society, Interrogation.

D20 does an excellent job with a single skill called Diplomacy which functions well in-game because it's so broadly defined. Let's face it, gaming situations are so completely varied that it's impossible to come up with specific skills for every single scenario. Instead, broad skills (particularly when it comes to interacting between characters) allow for more opportunities for use in play.

Consolidate into Knowledge Skills the following skills: Bureaucratics, Computer Programming, Criminology, Cryptography, Disguise,
Electronics, Forensic Medicine, Mechanics, Navigation, Paramedics, Security Systems, Systems Operation, Weaponsmith.

Consolidate into one skill (perhaps "Agility") the following skills: Acrobatics, Breakfall, Contortionist.

Consolidating the skill list would help by creating more general (i.e., broader) skills that can be then specialized according to player preference.
The general skills would naturally cost more due to their utility (putting skills back into the HERO paradigm).

Frankly, it's a little odd that so many skills that basically do the same thing are separated as they are. Oratory is essentially
Persuasion used on an audience rather than one person. Trading is using Persuasion to bargain, and so forth.

Also, Two-Weapon fighting needs a fix. As is, it's far too expensive an option for what you get (a glorified Sweep).

Add in the Universal skills from the Ultimate Skill into the main rulebook (Ultimate Scholar, Ultimate Driver, etc.).

Chris Goodwin

Feb 20th, '08, 09:52 AM

We almost have a fully freeform Skill system as it is, between KS and its various permutations, PS, and SS on the one side, and Power Skill on the other.

If I had Invisibility to Sight and Hearing Groups, RSR: Sneak Skill, what kind of Power Stunts could I use Sneak for? How about Shapeshift to the same groups, RSR: Change Self Skill?

I have to admit I have always thought that there was a difference between the "useful" Skills (Stealth, Concealment, Paramedic, Acrobatics) and the non-useful ones (Animal Handling, and the like) but I think that, given the right situation, any Skill can be useful. I'm all for either keeping them as is, or making them fully freeform and giving a list of suggested Skills (that more or less is the same as the current Skill list).

StGrimblefig

Feb 20th, '08, 09:57 AM

A cool idea would be to make all skills "general skills" at 11- and have a separate CHA/5 bonus that could change depending on what you were doing with that skill at that particular moment. So you could have a situation where you would use Computer Programming and INT to crack the spaceship security program and in another situation you might use Computer Programming and EGO to keep your cool while trying to deactivate the self destruct program.This is a cool idea. It makes the characteristics more broadly applicable to the skills, and not limited to just 3 characteristics.

Rep for you.:thumbup:

Vondy

Feb 20th, '08, 10:48 AM

OK, I might be a little off here, but I didn't think that the gutteral ch sound (made by the letter cheit) existed in european languages other than Yiddish.

And still I think I got my point across even if I made one error.

It also exists in the germanic language family. The germans express it with a diacritic mark under the h. Some Slavic languages also have it.

Yes, you made your point, but to what end? And what point do you think you made?

SSgt Baloo

Feb 20th, '08, 11:05 AM

Netzilla

Feb 20th, '08, 11:49 AM

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

Hmm. You remove Figured Characteristics then Char-based Skills and I start wondering what we really need the Primary Characteristics for anymore. I know some perform a few other functions, but some Primary Stats (like INT) are more about the skills they give than anything else. I think this would be a bad idea.

But as it stands in the HERO System, it’s easy to look at things and assume that for 3 points, you can buy a roll that lets a character succeed well over 50% of the time based on natural aptitude alone (i.e., a Characteristic-based roll).

I think this is as much a matter of perception as anything else. Look at it like this: For 3 Points you get a 9- roll. For 2 points you can increase that roll by 1. To this you add a bonus equal to your CHAR/5 (typically +1 to +4 in the normal human range. So, I spend 5 points on Acrobatics, giving me a 10- roll. I also have a 13 DEX, giving me a bonus of +3. So my final roll is 13-. 10 comes from the skill and only 3 comes from my DEX. Looked at like that, the stat is only a small component of your overall skill roll.

One other benefit of describing the skill like this: You can easily put in optional rules for making skill rolls using non-standard Characteristics (Acrobatics + PRE for wowing the crowd; Acrobatics + INT for knowing specific routines; Climbing + INT to plot the quickest route or estimate the difficulty of a climb; etc). A benefit of such an optional rules is that it reduces the need for a laundry-list of PS and KS lists.

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

I like the way the current system works. Some skills are binary by nature (weapon familiarities) and others are graded but don't seem like they would require an actual roll (languages). One of the consequences of making everything a roll-under skill would be: What does Small Arms 12- mean? It implies that this is what you roll to hit with that weapon. Unless we're revamping the whole combat system, I don't think that's what we want to imply.

I could see taking the Driving & Piloting skills and merging them with the Transport Familiarity lists in a manner similar to how Survival and Systems Operation has sub-categories. Theoretically, you could do the same with Combat Skills. Your categories become specific maneuvers, weapons, weapon categories and so forth. It'd be hard to balance doing Combat Skills this way point-wise, I suspect.

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

I can see room for a couple new skills (like Intimidation), but I think the list is certainly long enough as is. Sometimes I feel it's a bit too long. So, I wouldn't recommend adding anything unless we're also taking some things out (for example, folding Breakfall into Acrobatics).

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

There's really only two problems I've seen frequently come up with regards to CSLs:

Cost effectiveness: There is a strong feeling that CSLs are way to expensive when compared to just buying up your DEX. Also, some of the categories (such as 3 points for a full Martial Art or Framework) seems inconsistent with the price structures of other CSLs (3 points for Strike only or 3 points for 3 related maneuvers).
Strike costs 3 points while other single maneuvers only cost 2. I know this is due to the fact that “Strike” is really a catch-all category for any attack not defined by another maneuver. However, it's more confusing than it is useful or balanced. I think the 3pt “Strike” level needs to be dumped all together and just do a 2 point specific attack (such as punch, kick, energy blast, etc).

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

I think they work perfectly as they currently function. I don't think a greater degree of detail is needed as far as describing how well you understand a language and I think a Language Roll would get in the way more often than not. For those times when a roll seems required, an INT roll modified by your Language skill (Level – 3) works well enough and isn't conceptually difficult.

Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

If they're too cheap, it's not by much. Comparing them to HA plus CSLs seems more like evidence for the idea of CSLs being over-priced (or DEX being under-priced). When you factor in limitations for the HA and CSL only working with the Strike maneuver (not Haymaker, Move By, Move Through, etc), then I don't think the cost difference seems significant.