Skills Issues

[Steve Long]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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

[StGrimblefig]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Chris Goodwin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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).

James is Brilliant, as always.

D

[misterdeath]

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]

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]

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.

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?

[buzz]

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

[incrdbil]

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]

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.

I strongly agree with 1 and 3.

There, I said it.

Number 2 I am not too sure about. It would not give me any problem per see could be seen as a little bit hermetic for newcomers. I's rateher see skills listed as Combat Drving 13 (instead of 13-). Then again we are not suppose to discuss that kind of thing so nevermind.

[nexus]

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]

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?

[DreadDomain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Bob Gillen?

[The Monster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Ur? How do you figure?

[MorpheousXO]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[TSandman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[GamePhil]

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]

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.

So the more likely it is to be useful in the game (ie the more common the language), the less it should cost? I'll have to disagree on that.

[Gideon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"Ach, laddie, ich bin ein Berliner!"

[watson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Brilliant! Repped.:thumbup:

[Netzilla]

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.

[James Gillen]

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.

"Whaddya mean bass guitar isn't in the Guitar category? It's a GUITAR, isn't it?"

[BobGreenwade]

"Whaddya mean bass guitar isn't in the Guitar category? It's a GUITAR, isn't it?"

Actually those two would be pretty close. Many a guitarist can pick up a bass guitar and have a decent proficiency after a short period (say, a couple of hours) of familiarization.

I'm talking aboaut the difference between these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/French_horn_front.png/200px-French_horn_front.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/English_Horn.jpg/200px-English_Horn.jpg

[Balabanto]

And if I live in New York City, you are absolutely correct. It IS equally easy to be fluent in English, Spanish, or Cantonese. It just requires finding the right teachers, and/or being born in the right neighborhood.


The point is, even if you listed every language on Earth on the language chart, there are two flaws in having a language chart, which are these:

A) Game rarely, if ever takes place on Earth. All Galactic Settings need their own language chart.

B) Game takes place on a non-earth world entirely.

Unless Steve's going to waste a page providing us with a language chart template for non-earth worlds, the calculation cost of doing all the little boxes is insane and 90 percent of people don't perform the task correctly. So making it a straight reduction based on how many languages you take is simpler, easier, less of a waste of space, keeps players happier, and doesn't overburden people for taking a lot of languages, which, I believe several characters in my game world suffer from. This also reflects the idea of locality vs. use, effectively putting a power limitation on languages you use less often.

Really, is it necessary to speak Tagalog in day to day life for most people who live in France? The price of this skill shouldn't be that much, which is why I said the number of languages you buy should directly affect the cost down to a minimum of 1 point per language.

[SSgt Baloo]

I really, really think there ought to be a little more explaination about how to implement skills in the front of the book, like how sometimes a skill should automatically ensure success, so we don't on occasion habe people seriously proposing a "Doorknob Skill", and then suffering through the deeply divided discussion of whether "Doorknob Skill" is functionally equivalent to "Door Lever Skill", or if either can be used as the other skill, possibly with penalties ad nauseum.


I've seen too many systems with skill bloat (GURPS, I'm looking at YOU). The current list seems pretty credible.

<Snip>

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.


I was thinking similarly. Most of us have attended a school system that provided language courses. I would not deem it unreasonable to allow (Heroic and above) characters a number points for languages based in their INT at game start. Perhaps one. The first would be his native language at full value, with literacy (unless illitaracy is the norm for the campaign). The rest could be used for other languages, not to exceed his native fluency.




Of course, this is where I start to shill for my favorite idea: computer literacy as a language (no, hear me out).
One point allows you to communicate basic concepts to the computer: "turn on", "Run this program", "check email", etc.
Two points and you can chat online, look up websites, etc.
Three points and you can reliably use search engines to find information relevant to your needs.
Four points and you can easily use most functions available to you on the computer.
Five points and you are fully literate on the computer. :DOf course, I'm only half-kidding here, but using the computer is analagous to learning a new language. You have to learn to communicate with what amounts to an electronic moron with access to brilliant information. The problem is learning to understand how to communicate with this moron and interpret his responses in a way that make sense to you. My mom was so computer illiterate, my brother-in-law (BIL) and sister (Sis) bought her a WebTV box a few years back. She was computer illiterate, or at least computer ignorant at the time. Last year, my (then 83-year-old) mom moved in with Sis and BIL. They gave her their old computer and tutored her extensively. I'd put her at maybe 2 points of computer literacy now. Some concepts are still alien to her (the distinction between "click" and "double-click", for example). She's still not quite able to frame her search queries in such a way as to actually result in useful information and she still has trouble understanding that just because she sees it on her screen that isn't necessarily available on the computer itself, etc., etc., etc.


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

If you don't remember what he said about languages, go back and read it. I think it's an elegant solution to the mish-mash that currently exists, even if it would negate what I say above re: computer literacy.


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).

I've seen this proposed a number of times and I like it, but I think the less-than-full-amount skills should be coupled to the relevant characteristic. An example (but not necessarilt final form) of what I describe is presented below.

1 point = Characteristic roll -3 (results in 8- most times, but Mr. impaired or Mr. superior will have greater or lesser facility than Mr. 10)

2 points = Characteristic roll -2 (Results in 9- most times, and why should an impaired stat suddenly jump to as good as unimpaired Mr. 10?)

3 points = Characteristic roll. (Just like usual.)


I'm talking aboaut the difference between these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/French_horn_front.png/200px-French_horn_front.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/English_Horn.jpg/200px-English_Horn.jpg

[Emily Lutella]
Oh! That's different. Never mind.
[/Emily Lutella]

[Markdoc]

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.

Yeah, that's a common approach but it's not a great idea, because it stiffs the guy who bought the skill if you give a CHA roll for free and it encourages players not to buy skills (since they get a roll anyway, what's the point?).

I give a base 8- (everyman roll) if it's plausible or just tell the player that, no, they can't do it and need to find another way. And suggest they maybe buy some skills, for next time. :D

cheers, Mark

[archermoo]

Yeah, that's a common approach but it's not a great idea, because it stiffs the guy who bought the skill if you give a CHA roll for free and it encourages players not to buy skills (since they get a roll anyway, what's the point?).

I give a base 8- (everyman roll) if it's plausible or just tell the player that, no, they can't do it and need to find another way. And suggest they maybe buy some skills, for next time. :D

cheers, Mark

Generally I'll either do either an 8-, or a Characteristic Roll at minuses.

[Toadmaster]

Do not decouple skills from characteristics, it makes sense to me that a more agile person or a smarter person will learn certain skills faster. However I am open to alternative means of buying skills, I like some of the suggestions of 1 pt = 4 + x stat /5, 2 pts 6+ x stat/5 (numbers given as example only). Perhaps something like this could also be used to increase the cost as the skill improves. Something like 1 pt per increase to a certain level then 2 pts, the 4 pts etc. Since the base number is where the increased cost would be that should be fairly simple, you add the stat modifier afterwards.

Something like the take 20(?) rule in D&D should apply to basic tasks for a character at whatever the game determines to be "journeyman level" most people succeed with their common tasks, a locksmith should be able to open a master lock given a reasonable amount of time (5-10 minutes) and a minimum of distractions (nobody shooting at him).

Skill difficulty levels have a lot of room for improvement. Its not an easy thing to create a chart for every possibility but I think a better more descriptive chart could go along way towards people saying skills are too high. I think this is largely due to not adequately using the difficulty levels.

I like the idea of adding average times for skills, people often use the extra time for a bonus but many skills should take much longer than a phase, in fact outside of combat skills I can't think of many that should take less than a minute, many should take a lot longer. Persuading someone that you are right and they are wrong can take a lifetime, and is very unlikely to take less than a minute unless you are holding a gun on them and now we are talking about intimidation a completely different skill.

I would like to see more subsets within skills, too many include conflicting skills under the same name. Just because I know how to hide stuff well, should not mean I am also good at finding stuff, also knowing how to hide myself from a searcher has little to do with the first two skills. Currently concealment does all of these. There are many similar skills with too broad of an approach.

Similarly there are some spread to thin, Stealth should take care of moving quietly and hiding yourself, a character should not require Stealth and Concealment to be a sneaky bastard. Shadowing is a completely different skill and should remain so as it is not the art of hiding so much as the art of not being noticed by a specific target. In fact acting stealthy may draw the attention of the target while walking right under their nose to buy a paper may be just the thing to make them not notice you.

Perhaps all skills could be a bit more like KS/PS the more focused they are the greater a success is. So using Concealment as written a success is a normal success, but the skill concealing listening devices which is a very narrow focus that same success would make it much harder to detect the device and the sould quality would be much better.


Some discussion of the appropriate use of skills would be worthwhile too, in many games skills are filler and don't need as much definition, in other games skills are a major part of the game and should be pretty specific. In some games PS doctor is fine, in others PS doctor, Perk medical license, KS cardiology (for a cardiologist, pediatrics for a pediatrician etc), KS Pharmacology, KS human biology, KS golf courses with discounts for medical professionals etc is more appropriate.

Hero is very flexible and I don't think you should miss any opportunity to demonstrate that in the rules and examples.


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

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

[Gideon]

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?

My point was to show reasons why I think the language table should stay, and why I don't like Balabanto's suggestion for how to change how the language skill works.


And if I live in New York City, you are absolutely correct. It IS equally easy to be fluent in English, Spanish, or Cantonese. It just requires finding the right teachers, and/or being born in the right neighborhood.

I may be alone in my opinion here, but as far as I am concerned there is very little correlation between how common a language is in your area and how easy it is for you to learn a language.

Yes living near China Town in NYC will give me easy access to a cantonese teacher. That doesn't mean I will have an easier time becoming proficient with the language.

I (in real life) spent 5 years learning spanish in junior high and high school. I have zero proficency with the language, and cannot remember 99% of the vocabulary I was taught let alone the grammar. And forget trying to speak with someone conversationally, I can't even recognize the small number of words I do know when a native speaker uses them because of speed and inflection.

[rjcurrie]

My point was to show reasons why I think the language table should stay, and why I don't like Balabanto's suggestion for how to change how the language skill works.



I may be alone in my opinion here, but as far as I am concerned there is very little correlation between how common a language is in your area and how easy it is for you to learn a language.

Yes living near China Town in NYC will give me easy access to a cantonese teacher. That doesn't mean I will have an easier time becoming proficient with the language.

I (in real life) spent 5 years learning spanish in junior high and high school. I have zero proficency with the language, and cannot remember 99% of the vocabulary I was taught let alone the grammar. And forget trying to speak with someone conversationally, I can't even recognize the small number of words I do know when a native speaker uses them because of speed and inflection.

No, but the background can give you a reason why the character knows the language.

[rjcurrie]

Generally I'll either do either an 8-, or a Characteristic Roll at minuses.

Unless the skill is an everyman skill, anything 8- or better is being too generous; otherwise, what's the point of buying Familiarities.

[TSandman]

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.


Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?
What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.

We shouldn't oversimplify the skill list in the book either. As a GM that loves specific skills in many situation, I hate it when I have to expand those lists myself everytime, and that is WHEN it is doable (nWoD anyone?)

Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.

In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...

The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)

[Toadmaster]

Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?
What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.

We shouldn't oversimplify the skill list in the book either. As a GM that loves specific skills in many situation, I hate it when I have to expand those lists myself everytime, and that is WHEN it is doable (nWoD anyone?)

Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.

In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...

The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)

Must spread rep, yada yada yada



This is kind of what I was saying, I would like to see skills be more like KS / PS the more specific the better the success result. In a game where skills are more broad you take the basic 10-15 skills, but in games where skills play more part it would be worthwhile to open them up into subcategories. Systems use is another good existing example, it can be a broad category or it can be broken into radar systems, communications systems, guided missile systems, or even further into radar tracking systems, radar intercept systems etc as appropriate for the campaign.

[Opal]

Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?Why limit them with a limitted powers list? Hero is effects-based. Anything you can do with a magical, mutant, alient, or technological power, you can build with a Hero power with enough advantages, limitations, linked other powers or whatever. A finite set of mechanical powers gives you an unlimitted set of F/X powers.

It also means that after you've bought PD and ED, you don't have to worry about someone throwing a lightning bolt at you that goes against the WD that he just made up.


Why it would be limitting to have skills work the same way is beyond me. There are, truely, a finite number of things that specialized training can accomplish in a generic story line. You can uncover information, influcence actions, pass obstacles, avert a disaster or so forth. While I don't propose pairing skills down the way some have proposed having only a half-dozen powers, and I still want them to have intuitive, evocative names, I do think we need a finite set of top-level skills that players can take and know that they are broadly competent in an area they want to be competent in.

As it stands now, if you dump some points in Computer Programming you might be a decent or even a great programmer. But, it depends on who your GM is and how grumpy he's feeling that session. You might try to use your programming skills to move the plot along only to find out that you won't be permitted a roll because you didn't take KS: UNIX or something. Not cool.

More detailed skills (and/or levels) are great - and can be of theoretically unlimitted number. They could be used to build characters with more specific concepts or to add color (and specialities) to characters with the upper-level skills.

But, the current aproach is a nightmare.



What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.Ih. If that were entirely true, we couldn't have fixed costs for any power, skill or characteristic. Hero System is a game about heroics, and heroics share certain broad tropes. Fighting is going to be important, and the costs of combat abilities reflect that, just for the most obvious instance.


Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.The number of skills is currently potentially infinite, since you can make up any number of PS, KS, or Sci skills.


In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...Thank you. Yes, I don't mind the idea of GMs or players defining more specific skills. I just want a finite set of skills that cover all the critical functions of being a Heroic Whatever.


The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)A top-level general skill should cost more to buy up than a specific skill, so, given comparable points, a "Scientist" should not have nearly the roll of a "Geneticist" or "Herpetologist" in his field. In fact, I'd picture the "Scientist" buying a lower-level skill or narrow skill levels to model his speciality. And, yes, top-level skills should be for the Mr. Spock and James Bond types who are just beyond the pale in thier breadth of competence.

[TSandman]

This is kind of what I was saying, I would like to see skills be more like KS / PS the more specific the better the success result. In a game where skills are more broad you take the basic 10-15 skills, but in games where skills play more part it would be worthwhile to open them up into subcategories. Systems use is another good existing example, it can be a broad category or it can be broken into radar systems, communications systems, guided missile systems, or even further into radar tracking systems, radar intercept systems etc as appropriate for the campaign.


IMHO, Guided-Missile-System, Radar-Tracking-System etc could be as it is in many games, Specialities which of course could add to the skill

I'd keep it a bit more broad for skills

As an example, I like what has been done with System Operation...

Very broad for the basics, splitted into some more chunky component as ideas for options in the basic book, VASTLY expanded in Star Hero...

We must not use 50% of the books just for skill variation either ;)

[TSandman]

Opal...

Thanks for clarifying your stance on skills, what I understood wasn't all that clear.

I agree with most of what you do.

I just thought about this tho... at the Top level, wouldn't it be STATS?

then a selection of broad skills, splitted into more narrow skills then specialities?

Some sample of what I'm thinking of:

PRE -> Social Interaction -> Oratory/Speech -> Legal Arguments
PRE -> Social Interaction -> Diplomacy -> Deal Making
PRE -> Social Interaction -> Carousing -> Flirting/charming
INT -> Sciences -> Physics -> Astrophysics
INT -> Academics -> History -> Regency Era
DEX -> Athletism -> Running -> Sprint
DEX -> Craft/Hobby -> Military -> Miniature Painting

ad nauseam... ;)

Each level is more and more precise, used in less and less condition but cost less and less

Of course, it's just an idea that could underline what you said....

[KawangaKid]

I love Combat Skill Levels, General Skill Levels, Penalty Skill Levels. They, along with the Powers bit of the rules, allow for some really granular realization of characters.

I like being able to buy apparently useless Penalty Skill Levels just to cement my character concept of being unruffled by sudden environmental shifts. I like being able to build a super-expert in one type of combat and pretty good in other types of combat.

And so on. Revisions - will see, but I don't see them needing anything other than perhaps a revision to make the rules more concise. Newbies tend to be overwhelmed by the pages devoted to explaining their use (but they love the levels and so just ask the GM to explain).

[Yansuf]

I would not divorce skills from characteristics.

IMHO, for superhero, pulp or space opera games, there should be fewer, more general skills, For some other types like military special operations, more "realistic" SF, etc. very detailed skill lists are appropriate.
The two tier system may work.

On languages, I also think the type of game matters. For very "realistic" types the language chart is fine, but for the more "pulpish" games I would prefer straight 1 point basic, 2 points fluent, 3 points "like a native".

I actually liked the first edition martial arts.

[Opal]

TSandman: Yes, I suppose, conceptually, the stat is the very top-level, at least organizationally. Things like 'Scientist' or 'Scholar' or 'Social Interaction' were the sort I had in mind.

Also, some fairly specific seeming skills could be 'top level' ones if they had a particularly strong impact on adventuring in general. A top level Detective type skill, for instance. That kind of thing can be key to advancing the plot.

[TSandman]

TSandman: Yes, I suppose, conceptually, the stat is the very top-level, at least organizationally. Things like 'Scientist' or 'Scholar' or 'Social Interaction' were the sort I had in mind.

Also, some fairly specific seeming skills could be 'top level' ones if they had a particularly strong impact on adventuring in general. A top level Detective type skill, for instance. That kind of thing can be key to advancing the plot.


Personally, I just LOVE the way hero treats skills, as in "not one better than the other". I like the concept that HERO doesn't pretend to know what skill is more usefull than others for your game, compared to some other system out there. I also like the fact that you are NOT obliged to have skill.. not obliged as in "if you don't have skills, you still can play the system"...

D&D, WoD and many others forces you to take skills, even some that you wouldn't take juste because if you don't, you ARE screwed...

That mean you can play full Supers where skills wouldn't necessarily have that much effect.

It's that freedom with skills that I like, not being pigeonholed to use Craft that way, Diplomacy this way and Streetwise with 342 modifiers to find black market stuff, just because the system say-so.

I mean... you can leave that out in any system, but only in HERO the whole system don't comes crumbling down on you.

That's why I reacted somewhat forcefully when I saw your poste about reducing skills and putting more emphasis on some than others.

[Blue]

Here's a tough one for me to judge because I could fall either way:

Ever consider making every skill an everyman skill?

I mean, no, I'm not an acrobat, but on my best day I might be able to tumble through a hoop of flame. I'm no cryptographer, but there's an outside shot I could figure out the symbols on the Book of Souls and open it properly.

Another thought is about "Weapon Familiarity". Paying points for the right to use a weapon might be worth dumping for simplification purposes.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Here's a tough one for me to judge because I could fall either way:

Ever consider making every skill an everyman skill?

I mean, no, I'm not an acrobat, but on my best day I might be able to tumble through a hoop of flame. I'm no cryptographer, but there's an outside shot I could figure out the symbols on the Book of Souls and open it properly.

Another thought is about "Weapon Familiarity". Paying points for the right to use a weapon might be worth dumping for simplification purposes.

But could you fly a jetliner without crashing it on your best day? Of course not, unless you're a trained pilot. Would you be able to pick up the laser pistol the time traveler left behind and fire it without injuring yourself? I doubt it. Can you read Korean? Not unless you've put some time into learning the language.

Everyman skills are things that anyone can reasonably have picked up. The arcane symbols on the Book of Souls would not be an everyman skill.

[Vondy]

Everyman skills are things that anyone can reasonably have picked up. The arcane symbols on the Book of Souls would not be an everyman skill.

Their genre dependent for that reason. However, if you are the lead in The Mummy or the Mummy Returns and have the right language skill you can spout off ancient incantations and succeed. So, in that genre, he might be able to pick of the Book of Souls and whip out some soulificious magical effects. It depends on how you want your game to run. That's why the lists in the book are just rough suggestions and the list is left to the GM. It should probably stay that way.

[Susano]

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).

I'm very much in favor of this.

[pinecone]

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...)

I see that as an advantage, rather than a disadd...each game says what is exotic,rare,or common. As for comparing between games, I don't think I understand..."Ha! You loser! Italian love poetry of the middle ages is Rare in our game!!!" If that makes you feel good, well, go ahead.

I've always played it that the player sets the reality meter, if you say that being attacked by ghosts is "common" then it IS. For you anyway, so I don't see the source of your objection....

[TSandman]

I see that as an advantage, rather than a disadd...each game says what is exotic,rare,or common. As for comparing between games, I don't think I understand..."Ha! You loser! Italian love poetry of the middle ages is Rare in our game!!!" If that makes you feel good, well, go ahead.

I've always played it that the player sets the reality meter, if you say that being attacked by ghosts is "common" then it IS. For you anyway, so I don't see the source of your objection....

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

[ajackson]

It might be worth looking at the cost of levels.

In my experience, other than control rolls for VPPs or RSR, buying up a single skill at 2pp/+1 is almost unheard of; you almost always buy 3 or 5 point levels, because getting two more skills at a net cost of 1pp is almost always worth it. Ponder changing it to be:
2pp/level: 1 skill, as normal
3pp/level: 2 skills (not 3)
4pp/level: 5 skills
5pp/level: all skills under one attribute, or a similar list.

Now, for combat: really, the scaling of levels is odd. Being good at all combat is not significantly more useful than being only good with a specific list of powers that are what I use all the time anyway, but can easily go from 8 point levels to 3 point levels. I would shift 5 point levels down to 4 points, and 8 point levels down to 5 points. Even then, given the cost of Dex, general combat levels aren't very tempting, though if 2 levels can be converted to +1 DC it's probably fairly priced.

[Acid_Crash]

My newest idea for skills is that they should cost more points, start at a lower baseline, and should be harder to improve.

I think the whole 3/2 thing is a little tiring, and I think that the skills that aren't skills, like Combat Skill Levels and Penalty Skill Levels and the Defensive Maneuver skills, which are actually Talents in how they work, should NOT be skills at all, but Talents, since they have Talent like costs.

Those need to be stripped from the skills chapter.

Then, I think HERO system has too many skills... I love how the language skills and weapon familiarity skills work, but there are so many skills that could be combined into more simpler skills that it would make things a bit easier.

Then increase the cost. Instead of the whole 3/2 split, just make each skill rank cost a certain amount of points. I suggest 4 points per rank. No cost 3 to learn than 2 points per rank afterwards, just a simple 4 points per rank.

----

Another slightly more radical idea is to split skills from their base characteristics, I doubt that would happen but it's possible. For some games this works.

[steamteck]

It might be worth looking at the cost of levels.

In my experience, other than control rolls for VPPs or RSR, buying up a single skill at 2pp/+1 is almost unheard of; you almost always buy 3 or 5 point levels, because getting two more skills at a net cost of 1pp is almost always worth it. Ponder changing it to be:
2pp/level: 1 skill, as normal
3pp/level: 2 skills (not 3)
4pp/level: 5 skills
5pp/level: all skills under one attribute, or a similar list.

Now, for combat: really, the scaling of levels is odd. Being good at all combat is not significantly more useful than being only good with a specific list of powers that are what I use all the time anyway, but can easily go from 8 point levels to 3 point levels. I would shift 5 point levels down to 4 points, and 8 point levels down to 5 points. Even then, given the cost of Dex, general combat levels aren't very tempting, though if 2 levels can be converted to +1 DC it's probably fairly priced.


My players buy up individual skills all the time. here's the thing for everyone who says nobody ever does anything I bet there are at least an equal number who do it that way. Flexibility should be added not taken away.
However, What you actually proposed seems to have nothing to do with your statement ( to me at least) and isn't a bad system that doesn't hurt flexibility at all.

Foe use combat levels mainly come into play I guess because of concept. It would never occur to our group to buy a Ben Grimm type character's DEX up past a certain level but skill levels ,sure.
I just don't see combat levels as a bad deal like others. My players love them. Their flexibility makes a 3 point level a great deal for combat investment ( everybody was kung fu fighting!):D

[SSgt Baloo]

I think the whole 3/2 thing is a little tiring, and I think that the skills that aren't skills, like Combat Skill Levels and Penalty Skill Levels and the Defensive Maneuver skills, which are actually Talents in how they work, should NOT be skills at all, but Talents, since they have Talent like costs.

Those need to be stripped from the skills chapter.

Agreed. Skill levels that apply to more than a single skill, and any combat skill levels, should be made talents.


Then, I think HERO system has too many skills... I love how the language skills and weapon familiarity skills work, but there are so many skills that could be combined into more simpler skills that it would make things a bit easier.

Then increase the cost. Instead of the whole 3/2 split, just make each skill rank cost a certain amount of points. I suggest 4 points per rank. No cost 3 to learn than 2 points per rank afterwards, just a simple 4 points per rank.

I disagree. The higher cost of a skill than skill levels for it includes the use of that skill at its base level, be it based on a characteristic or not. That, in my book, makes it worth more.


Another slightly more radical idea is to split skills from their base characteristics, I doubt that would happen but it's possible. For some games this works.

Perhaps, but then you have things like people with great dexterity or intellect being no better at what they do than a skilled rock.:rolleyes:

I would like to suggest that it should be >optional<, depending on the genre and GM to combine two (or more) closely-related three-point skills, FREX: dex-based skills or detective skills or whatever, subject to GM approval. The first skill is 3 points while subsequent skills are 2 points each. That allows the GM to make, for example, Police Work a compound skill combining the skills the GM thinks every policeman should have (or Detective, or whatever). Compound skills would buy skill levels based on how many skills it was based on. It would not necessarily replace Skill Enhancers since you could only buy compound skills the GM has made available.

I've always wanted the Scientists (as opposed to mere, uncapitalized scientists :D) to be not only TOP MEN in their field, but competent in a broad range of sciences unrelated to their specialty. While inappropriate to most Heroic (and below) genres, this is a recurring trope in Superheroic, Pulp, and some Science Fiction settings. I'd like to see some way of modelling the "Mad (or at least slightly unhinged) Genius" who is an expert in his field, and pretty much a journeyman in most other sciences.

[The Horror]

A couple of years ago there was a small thread on these boards that really made me think. And my opinion remains unchanged. I think both characteristics and skills should be done away with entirely.

The original thread is here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19147). I have summarised some of my thoughts from that thread here.



IMO the great strength of HERO is the ability to create anything using the powers. So why do we have characteristics and skills exactly? It seems to me like a holdover from the early days of roleplaying.

I say replace them all with 'abilities'. First the players describe anything that they want their character to be able to do. They then pay some points for their chosen abilities based on how useful the ability is in the campaign, and how good they are at it. A cost system similar to disadvantages say, using some rough levels like "good, excellent, human max, superhuman, godlike being".

So lets say for example that during character creation player #1 says he wants to be able to run fast, and to lift up heavy things. He might buy Running as per the power, and buy Lift as an ability. The GM would look at the generic table provided with the abilities section, and decide that Lift is of moderate use in the campaign. This sets the base amount of points Lift will cost. Then the player decides how well he wants to be able to Lift (ie. good, excellent, human max, etc...).and applies the cost modifier for the rough level he wants the ability at. If a character who doesn't have Lift tries to lift something, he only does as well as a normal person might.

These abilities could be anything not covered by powers, and filling in the roles of characteristics and skills. They would include things like: lifting, looking cool, commander (or born leader), ace pilot, crack shot (and any other skills really), hardy (I'm thinking diseases here), or maybe even speedy. Most other things would be covered by the powers and use the system of balance for those.

Surely you could do the same thing with all the skills, and with the attributes as well. Keep PD, ED, REC, and END as powers. All the rest can be purchased as some sort of generic ability system. The ability to stun someone can be decided based on the amount of damage dealt compared to body/toughness/machismo ability level of the character (with a default number allocated if they don't buy the ability).

If you want an ability done at greater levels than the 5-6 levels provided, maybe a Megascaling or some sort... Oh yes, I can almost feel the power of looking cool at Megascale. :cool:



The Horror

[nexus]

I would like to suggest that it should be >optional<, depending on the genre and GM to combine two (or more) closely-related three-point skills, FREX: dex-based skills or detective skills or whatever, subject to GM approval. The first skill is 3 points while subsequent skills are 2 points each. That allows the GM to make, for example, Police Work a compound skill combining the skills the GM thinks every policeman should have (or Detective, or whatever). Compound skills would buy skill levels based on how many skills it was based on. It would not necessarily replace Skill Enhancers since you could only buy compound skills the GM has made available.

I've always wanted the Scientists (as opposed to mere, uncapitalized scientists :D) to be not only TOP MEN in their field, but competent in a broad range of sciences unrelated to their specialty. While inappropriate to most Heroic (and below) genres, this is a recurring trope in Superheroic, Pulp, and some Science Fiction settings. I'd like to see some way of modelling the "Mad (or at least slightly unhinged) Genius" who is an expert in his field, and pretty much a journeyman in most other sciences.

This is discussed in some detail in TUS so it would just be a matter of moving that to the corebook(s). I think it would be a worthy addition but, personally, I love the way Skills work by default in Hero. There is just the right level of diversity and focus in the core skills and the simple costing structure makes it easy to add more skills for specific genres (if those aren't already covered by PS, KS or SS), for example Armorsmith in Fantasy Hero

[The Shadow]

The Horror: A very profound idea, that. I honestly don't think there's any chance it will happen, but I think it would be EXTREMELY cool.

Nexus: That's the first time I've ever heard HERO's skill costing system described as 'simple'. Most games just have a flat cost for skills, instead of multiple different ways with lots of exceptions. I honestly question whether all the ins, outs, and exceptions really add anything at all to the game.

[Jomster]

Re granularity

So I've got INT 17 and I'm using my demolitions skill to defuse a particularly nasty bomb to stop the anarchists from blowing up Prince Fastbaum's zeppelin... I've really got to make this roll as we're 1,000 feet up over the icy North Sea and falling into that from this height really won't be good.

After some difficulty mods the GM tells me I need 12 or less to succeed. "Come on dice, come on you can do it...."

I roll....

and get 13. :(

No...... but wait.... I point out to the GM that actually I'm 80% of the way to needing 13 or less. You see my INT is 17 and that's one point away from the magic +1 to my roll.

He buys my argument and I roll a d6 (ignoring 6's) and get a 3! Good show chaps, we've saved the day! Would have failed on a 5 but got 4 or less so we're home and dry.

The anarchists' foul plot is foiled, Prince Fastbaum will live to make it to the banquet in Finland and our heroes will avoid an untimely chilly end in the cold North Sea! :celebrate

What do you think? Would you use this approach to give extra granularity to skills and avoid the breakpoint problem?

[Funksaw]

I like the skill system the way it is - mostly, but my only problem is that it seems too granular.

I believe it is probably best to adopt an approach where instead of buying individual skills, you buy broader "skill sets" - i.e., "science & technology" instead of "biology, electronics, inventing, computer operation, computer security" -- at the CHA/5 for 3 + 2 for each additional point. If you really want a character who gets bonuses ONLY for computer security, you could add that on as a "specialty" at a 1-to-1 point basis. (And yes, there's overlap - "science & technology" might overlap with "detective" at the "computer hacking" area - but you know what? Go with it.)

It's a subtle change, but the end result is that:

A) Less points will be spent on skills.
B) Less time will be spent designing a character's skills, which makes the game simpler for new players.
C) With fewer skills on the sheet, there's less of a temptation to take time out and figure out if you can eek out a few more points by increasing DEX/INT or buying up skills.
D) It fits the comicbook genre better as a baseline but does not rule out GMs wanting to play more realistic genres.

I would also make every skill based on a characteristic. Personal preference, but I'd rather only have one type of skill and one type of skill costs.

[Ockham's Spoon]

While I agree with Steve that real world skills are based more on experience than natural ability, the Hero system is not trying to model reality, but fiction. And for almost every genre, the heroes are just innately good at stuff, so ultimately I think that skills should be based on CHA scores; it is good “game logic”. That said, I think the current system could be improved, so I would like to offer the following radical suggestion for skill system for consideration:

1. For 1 pt, any skill requiring a roll can be bought at 8-, including KS, PS, SS, and “defined” skills like Stealth and such.

2. For 2 pts, any skill can be bought at the base roll (8-) plus the defining CHA/3, but any bonus from CHA cannot exceed 1.5x the points spent on the specific skill.

3. For every +2 pts, the skill roll can be increased by +1, not counting the CHA bonus. Of course by spending just +1 pt the level of the CHA/3 bonus could be increased.

4. Characters may purchase the “Natural Talent” Skill Enhancer for any CHA (if you like, call it Agile for DEX, Genius for INT, Charismatic for PRE, etc.). Natural Talent costs 3 pts and adds 1 pt toward the total points spent on any skill based on the appropriate CHA only for the purposes of computing the amount the CHA/3 value can add to the skill roll.

For a look at how this works out, consider the success rate of the same skill with different CHA scores (nobody has Natural Talent here):
Edit: please pardon the terrible formatting; something I need to learn to do on the boards I guess

Pts in skill=> 1 2 3 4 5
__________________________________________________ ___
Current CHA 10 8- 11- 11- 11- 12-
New CHA 10 8- 11- 11- 12- 12-
__________________________________________________ ___
Current CHA 15 8- 11- 12- 12- 13-
New CHA 15 8- 11- 13- 14- 14-
__________________________________________________ ___
Current CHA 20 8- 11- 13- 13- 14-
New CHA 20 8- 11- 13- 15- 16-
__________________________________________________ ___
Current CHA 25 8- 11- 14- 14- 15-
New CHA 25 8- 11- 13- 15- 17-
__________________________________________________ ___
Current CHA 30 8- 11- 15- 15- 16-
New CHA 30 8- 11- 13- 15- 17-

Pros:
1. Skills become more granular without becoming too ridiculous at high CHA levels.

2. Purchase of CHA becomes more granular with the CHA/3 instead of CHA/5 structure.

3. The system becomes more unified since all skills are bought this way, and because the CHA/3 mirrors Combat Value calculations.

4. The cost/effectiveness of skills remains fairly close to what it is now so the system is nicely backward compatible. Actually it slightly favors heroic level campaigns, which I think is appropriate for skills, and supers can always buy Natural Talent for folks like Spiderman.

Cons:
1. Somewhat more complicated to initially figure your roll.
2. Other things I am sure the good people of Herodom will point out that I missed.

Other thoughts:
1. This system makes skills slightly cheaper at heroic levels and potentially more effective at superheroic levels for a given number of points. Personally I find this a plus, but I know others might disagree.

2. Realistically people aren’t superb combatants just because they are agile (I think this was mentioned by Steve in another thread). To remedy that, you could add a skill called “Battle Skill” (or break it up into “Brawler” for HTH and “Sharpshooter” for Ranged if you want, or even require Battle Skills for each different kind of weapon/attack). For combat you would have a Battle Skill contest between the two combatants to see if a hit was scored or not. Such a system would further unify the way the rules are handled, but it would also make it very cheap to buy levels with combat (unless you make people buy Battle Skill for each type of attack). It would also probably cheese off some people to have to buy a skill just to be able to fight, realistic or not.

[rjcurrie]

I'm curious. Are those of you who are finding Skills too expensive, playing Heroic games? If so, why not simply increase the number of points you give players to build with?

[Opal]

I'm running a super-heroic game, and I don't find skills to expensive on an individual basis, exactly, I just find that there are too many of them. As a player, my frustration - regardless of genre - is that the skill list is effectively open-ended, so if I can never be sure if I really have all the skills to model my concept, since the GM can always invent an additional skill that's vital to whatever it is I'm trying to do at the moment.

[archermoo]

I'm running a super-heroic game, and I don't find skills to expensive on an individual basis, exactly, I just find that there are too many of them. As a player, my frustration - regardless of genre - is that the skill list is effectively open-ended, so if I can never be sure if I really have all the skills to model my concept, since the GM can always invent an additional skill that's vital to whatever it is I'm trying to do at the moment.

That sounds more like a campaign level or even interpersonal level issue than a core rules level one. If the Ref is making up new skills on the fly just to thwart the players that sounds like a Ref that is stuck in the "Ref vs. Player" mentality. Not a game I'm interested in playing myself...

[Opal]

I find it even with GMs who are pretty plot driven and player friendly. They get this terrible look of disapointment when they find out, no, your character who is supposed to be a skilled hacker doesn't have KS: "Network Service Layer Protocols." It's not that they're trying to mess with you, it's just thier familiarity with something is greater - or even that you just didn't think to take the skill. When I find myself doing that, I let the player buy the skill on the spot with exp, because it really is just a misunderstanding between us, based on the rules for certain types of skills being open-ended.

My other objection to it is that there's a 'skill inflation' effect that's been going virtually the entire history of the game. 1st Ed had only a handful of skill, some were combat-related, and all were obvious, had aplications to Heroing, and had no real overlap. Justice Inc and Espionage, though, had more skills, at lower costs, that overlapped the Champions skills. Champions II added 'background' skills that were supposed to be cheap and strictly for favor (spend 2 pts on your secret ID's proffession kind of thing). When the games were combined, first informally, in 3rd, then explicitly in 4th, those things all got muddled together, and you have many skills, some of which are a tad redundant, /and/ background skills have ballooned from 2 pts to have your secret ID's profession to dozens of points to model even fairly straightforward training /that's already covered by existing skills/.

What the inflation effect has done is increased the proportion of a character's points that should reasonably be devoted to skills. That's one reason standard supers are now 200 pts +150 in disads, when they had been as low as 100 + 100 or so.

[rjcurrie]

What the inflation effect has done is increased the proportion of a character's points that should reasonably be devoted to skills. That's one reason standard supers are now 200 pts +150 in disads, when they had been as low as 100 + 100 or so.

So?

[archermoo]

I find it even with GMs who are pretty plot driven and player friendly. They get this terrible look of disapointment when they find out, no, your character who is supposed to be a skilled hacker doesn't have KS: "Network Service Layer Protocols." It's not that they're trying to mess with you, it's just thier familiarity with something is greater - or even that you just didn't think to take the skill. When I find myself doing that, I let the player buy the skill on the spot with exp, because it really is just a misunderstanding between us, based on the rules for certain types of skills being open-ended.

My other objection to it is that there's a 'skill inflation' effect that's been going virtually the entire history of the game. 1st Ed had only a handful of skill, some were combat-related, and all were obvious, had aplications to Heroing, and had no real overlap. Justice Inc and Espionage, though, had more skills, at lower costs, that overlapped the Champions skills. Champions II added 'background' skills that were supposed to be cheap and strictly for favor (spend 2 pts on your secret ID's proffession kind of thing). When the games were combined, first informally, in 3rd, then explicitly in 4th, those things all got muddled together, and you have many skills, some of which are a tad redundant, /and/ background skills have ballooned from 2 pts to have your secret ID's profession to dozens of points to model even fairly straightforward training /that's already covered by existing skills/.

What the inflation effect has done is increased the proportion of a character's points that should reasonably be devoted to skills. That's one reason standard supers are now 200 pts +150 in disads, when they had been as low as 100 + 100 or so.

Huh. I don't know that I've played with a Ref that didn't have copies of everyone's character sheets in decades. I know that I certainly require having one when I Ref. So if I'm surprised by someone not having something on their sheet I only have myself to blame. I also make a point of talking about the character concept and the skills that I have to make sure that the character is an expert in the things that I want him to be an expert in, good at the things I want him to be good at, and so on. I've played in games that the Ref told me that buying both Paramedics and PS: Doctor was overkill. I've played in games where I was told that even though I had Paramedics and PS: Doctor if I didn't have PS: Surgeon and I needed to do any cutting I'd be at minuses. Different campaigns work in different ways, and it is important to work this things out ahead of time with the Ref.

Personally I like the skill system in Hero a lot. It has granularity for games that want that, but can also be implemented simplistically for those that prefer it that way.

[Opal]

Huh. I don't know that I've played with a Ref that didn't have copies of everyone's character sheets in decades.Not much for conventions, then?


I've played in games that the Ref told me that buying both Paramedics and PS: Doctor was overkill. I've played in games where I was told that even though I had Paramedics and PS: Doctor if I didn't have PS: Surgeon and I needed to do any cutting I'd be at minuses. That's the sort of inconsistency that bothers me, yes. Skills are a mechanical aspect of the game, Paramedics is the skill that actually lets you perform life-saving procedures on people. While a perk: liscence to practice medicine, or a PS: surgeon, might affect your oportunity or abilty to make money at it in a given culture, they shouldn't impact your ability to do it.

[archermoo]

Not much for conventions, then?

No, not really. But most convention games I've seen (including all that I've run) supply characters. And even if I did allow people to bring their own they'd need to have a copy for me.


That's the sort of inconsistency that bothers me, yes. Skills are a mechanical aspect of the game, Paramedics is the skill that actually lets you perform life-saving procedures on people. While a perk: liscence to practice medicine, or a PS: surgeon, might affect your oportunity or abilty to make money at it in a given culture, they shouldn't impact your ability to do it.

And it is that kind of thing that I consider to be one of the greatest strengths of HERO. It is a toolkit that lets you put together the game YOU want. Not a inflexible game that forces you to play the way someone else thinks you should.

[ajackson]

Hm. My standard for custom skills (science skills, etc) is to just ask the player what skill he'd like to apply to the problem. Depending on the relevance, he gets penalties.

[Opal]

And it is that kind of thing that I consider to be one of the greatest strengths of HERO. It is a toolkit that lets you put together the game YOU want. Not a inflexible game that forces you to play the way someone else thinks you should.Certainly, but when it's working right, the GM knows to point out, BTW, KAs work differently in my campaign, or Magic is the only special effect that lets you use certain powers, or whatever. There is a working rule set that the GM can modify to fit his whims. With the open-ended skills, there isn't - and there are too many of them to define and to define all thier effects and requirements and thier impacts upon other skills.

This is a case of sepparating mechanics from F/X. If you can stabilize a dying character, you take Paramedics. It shouldn't matter if you're an EMT, doctor, herbalist, or priest.

[archermoo]

Certainly, but when it's working right, the GM knows to point out, BTW, KAs work differently in my campaign, or Magic is the only special effect that lets you use certain powers, or whatever. There is a working rule set that the GM can modify to fit his whims. With the open-ended skills, there isn't - and there are too many of them to define and to define all thier effects and requirements and thier impacts upon other skills.

This is a case of sepparating mechanics from F/X. If you can stabilize a dying character, you take Paramedics. It shouldn't matter if you're an EMT, doctor, herbalist, or priest.

I'll point out that the example I gave was "perform surgery" not "stabalize a dying character".

[GamePhil]

That's the sort of inconsistency that bothers me, yes. Skills are a mechanical aspect of the game, Paramedics is the skill that actually lets you perform life-saving procedures on people. While a perk: liscence to practice medicine, or a PS: surgeon, might affect your oportunity or abilty to make money at it in a given culture, they shouldn't impact your ability to do it.

I don't know, this is an issue that may be better addressed by greater discussion in the book on running a high detail game versus a low detail game. Perhaps points could be provided both for how powerful the characters are supposed to be (which could be spent anywhere) and for how detailed (which would be spent only on Background Skills, Perks, and so on).

There would be some overlap, some Perks are too important to be bought with Background Points or whatever. Hey, it's a work in progress.

[TSandman]

D) It fits the comicbook genre better as a baseline but does not rule out GMs wanting to play more realistic genres.

Then, what do people, like me, who do not like the comicbook genre? What if we like Dark and Gritty reality-like games? What would distinguish our Computer Hacker from the MD, since it's now just "Science and Technology"???

IF you are playing SuperHeroic games, THEN it makes sense of having more broad skills, because your Super Scientist knows implicitly MANY sciences.. she IS a Super Scientist after all... then the other character types are mostly using Powers... IF you are playing only Heroic or near-normal like character (and it CAN be fun) THEN, with only overly-broad skills, you'll end up with a LOT of skills overlap (said Computer Guy having as much of "Sciences and Technology" than the MD.

While one must not forget that while Champion is an historical base for HERO, we must not make other genre less appealing. Why not just have the option of Supers* buying levels in categories just as it were a single skill?

ex: the Sciences and Technology has 5-6 skills related to it (System Op, Computers, etc) but Supers could treat the category itself as a single broadly encompassing skill.

Wouldn't not that cater to both crowds? The only downside I see of this is that those who wants simpler skills would have some unused space on their character sheet...


* Supers or even normal if the GM want a "Skill-light" game..

[TSandman]

I find it even with GMs who are pretty plot driven and player friendly. They get this terrible look of disapointment when they find out, no, your character who is supposed to be a skilled hacker doesn't have KS: "Network Service Layer Protocols."

As a player and part-time GM in a group that has 3 electronic technician (including me) I'd say that one must forgive the one that do not know our field...

At the same time, we strongly suggest those who want to play techies but really can't to do something else... or to let use help them build their characters...

There is such thing has having limits on soft-science ruling ;)

One must not also go to the extreme... I'm sorry, but even in a techie-centered game, I'd never ask for the "KS: OSPF & BGP" or "KS: CMOS, TTL and FET". Not only is this irrealist on what I'm asking, it's an enormous waste of points if the player even take those... wayyyy much narrow..

[Opal]

And everyone has thier own idea of how narrow or broad such skills should be - since the game leaves them undefined. Everybody including not just players and GMs but writers. While it'd be fine to have such detail skills as sub-skills or levels, and leave the breadth or cost of them to be set by the GM, skills with well defined mechanical functions should be finite in number, and adequate with or without such detail add-ons.

That's how powers work: a defined mechanic, with issues of what's common or useful handled with limitations adjudicated by the DM.

If powers worked the way skills do now, your EB would occassionally fail because you forgot to buy it "works vs CHAOS Agents,' as well as "works vs Viper Agent."

[GamePhil]

If powers worked the way skills do now, your EB would occassionally fail because you forgot to buy it "works vs CHAOS Agents,' as well as "works vs Viper Agent."

If you can please point out where it says that not having Background Skills prevents you from using the main Skill, I'll be on board at least somewhat with your argument. Because all I can find is a lot of material on using them to act to improve the main Skills through Complimentary Rolls, nothing about not allowing the use of main Skills if a Background Skill is not possessed.

Otherwise, I'm just going to have to assume that you and your GMs who use that kind of ruling are mis-interpreting and mis-representing the rules, and they are fine the way they are. Even if such a rule exists, it's an indication that that rule should be removed, not the Skill rules as they exist overall.

[Shike019]

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

Personally I think, in reality, skills are based on individual ability. People who are "just smarter" tend to know more, those who have better manual dexterity can do things like sew, play piano, etc better than those who don't, training not withstanding. To me natural ability is what we refer to as "talent" in a particular area.



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


I'd like to see the skills that aren't based on a roll be moved into the "Talents" section, such as 2 weapon fighting, defense maneuver, and anything where you are either able to do it or not, like weapon familiarity and Transport Familiarity.



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


See my above and below coments on non roll based skills and CSL's.

As for the rest of the skills, I love the amount of skills and the ability to customize them, especially in terms of KS, SS, and PS skills.



Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

I'd like to see CSL's be placed into the Martial Arts Section of the book, and also have MA's be put into their own section, as they are a beast of their own.



Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?


I think the language skill (as it is) should be left alone. It already indicates level of aptitude with the language. My experience with gaming systems is that you either know a language or don't and doesn't take into account language families like the Hero System does.



Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?


Personally I think that Martial Arts are priced fine, especially since you have to buy a minimum of 10 pts worth. Going buy this, the more Martial Arts You buy the more Versatility you have, not the more powerful you are. My current character has 86 points spent in MA and can use only 3 - 5 pts worth at a time. I think that is a good balancing factory.

Like I said earlier, I think martial Arts should be their own section, especially considering their cost structure is completely different from anything else in the skills section, and they have a completely different combat effect than even combat skills. I also think that this is the area where CSL's should be put. We already place extra Damage Classes in this section, why not CSL's, it makes sense to me. ;)

[nexus]

Personally I think, in reality, skills are based on individual ability. People who are "just smarter" tend to know more, those who have better manual dexterity can do things like sew, play piano, etc better than those who don't, training not withstanding. To me natural ability is what we refer to as "talent" in a particular area.



I think as it stands Hero does a good job of simulating that influence of training and experience on skills. In many cases, your just can't perform several skills unless you purchase them (generally meaning that your PC has received training in that area). I could have an Int of 35 but I can't perform the Electronics Skill (except possibly some -very- simple uses of of it with GM permission) until I get the skill. But I will have an advantage and pick things up faster (IE get a higher roll) faster than someone of average Int.



I'd like to see the skills that aren't based on a roll be moved into the "Talents" section, such as 2 weapon fighting, defense maneuver, and anything where you are either able to do it or not, like weapon familiarity and Transport Familiarity.


My guess is that Defense Maneuver and other things like it were listed as Skills is because, unlike Talents, most of them aren't (and can't be) built with heavily modified small powers. At least not at the same point cost, but I could be wrong. This fails for example, in the case of Two Weapon Fighting.

[Shike019]

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.

I have to agree with Bob on this one. English Horn should be placed with Oboe, considering it is comparable to an oboe as a tenor sax is to a soprano sax.

I'd like to see the skill broken down into Hi Brass (Trumpet, french horn, etc), Low Brass (Tuba, Euphonium/Baritone, Trombone, etc), Woodwinds (Saxes, Clarinets, Flutes, Oboe, English Horn, Bassoon), High Strings (Violin, Viola), Low Strings(Cello, bass), Guitar (acustic, electric, electric base, Lute, Mandolin, etc), Keyboard (Piano, Harpsicord, organ, etc), Percussion (Drums including drum kit, Xylaphones, etc), Harps, and so on.

These are pretty much the way these instrument groups are taught because of their similarities. Such as, someone who plays a sax uses a fingering system extremely similar to a flute and a mouthpiece almost identical to a clarinet, but having saxes including with trombones and trumpets is pointless as the skill set to play them are completely different, even if they use the same building materials.

[Shike019]

I think as it stands Hero does a good job of simulating that influence of training and experience on skills. In many cases, your just can't perform several skills unless you purchase them (generally meaning that your PC has received training in that area). I could have an Int of 35 but I can't perform the Electronics Skill (except possibly some -very- simple uses of of it with GM permission) until I get the skill. But I will have an advantage and pick things up faster (IE get a higher roll) faster than someone of average Int.

I completely agree, I was just addressing the thought of divorcing char. from skills. :)




My guess is that Defense Maneuver and other things like it were listed as Skills is because, unlike Talents, most of them aren't (and can't be) built with heavily modified small powers. At least not at the same point cost, but I could be wrong. This fails for example, in the case of Two Weapon Fighting.

I don't disagree, but I think that talents should be unique abilities that don't require the flexibility of powers and skills should have at least a consistent scalable structure as most skills are characteristic based with a roll equal to that of the characteristic (or can be characteristic based), but the key point I'm trying to make is it has a roll associated with it.

[nexus]

I completely agree, I was just addressing the thought of divorcing char. from skills. :)


Sorry, I meant that to be supporting your statement not debating it. I should have been clearer.





I don't disagree, but I think that talents should be unique abilities that don't require the flexibility of powers and skills should have at least a consistent scalable structure as most skills are characteristic based with a roll equal to that of the characteristic (or can be characteristic based), but the key point I'm trying to make is it has a roll associated with it.

Honestly I kind of agree with you. It was odd to see those as Skills I was theorizing about why they might have been put there. I think another reason might have been Skills are generally assumed to be things you can be taught and Talents are "knacks", things you can just just do and are born with.

Of course that's mixing mechanics and sfx to some extent and of some Talents can be taught, like Speed Reading.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re granularity

So I've got INT 17 and I'm using my demolitions skill to defuse a particularly nasty bomb to stop the anarchists from blowing up Prince Fastbaum's zeppelin... I've really got to make this roll as we're 1,000 feet up over the icy North Sea and falling into that from this height really won't be good.

After some difficulty mods the GM tells me I need 12 or less to succeed. "Come on dice, come on you can do it...."

I roll....

and get 13. :(

No...... but wait.... I point out to the GM that actually I'm 80% of the way to needing 13 or less. You see my INT is 17 and that's one point away from the magic +1 to my roll.

He buys my argument and I roll a d6 (ignoring 6's) and get a 3! Good show chaps, we've saved the day! Would have failed on a 5 but got 4 or less so we're home and dry.

The anarchists' foul plot is foiled, Prince Fastbaum will live to make it to the banquet in Finland and our heroes will avoid an untimely chilly end in the cold North Sea! :celebrate

What do you think? Would you use this approach to give extra granularity to skills and avoid the breakpoint problem?

I posted something similar in the Characetristics thread, IIRC.

[Netzilla]

Ah, the old 60pt Lawyer dilema.

Should you have to buy KS: Corporate Law, KS: Criminal Law, PS: Defense Attourney, PS: Prosocuting Attourney, etc. for 60 pts or just buy KS: Law and PS: Lawyer for 6 point). Typically, the correct answer is: If you're playing Law & Order Hero, do the first; in most other campaigns do the second.

I've gotten into this argument with one of the other GMs in my group. At the time, it was while we were prepping for a Star Hero campaign. He was all for breaking down Electrinics, Computer Programming and all the other technical skills down into the detailed components given in Star Hero mainly because there were rules to cover it and it "helped better define the character". I was against that idea since it would make the mechanic and computer expert over-priced compared to the pilot, doctor and infiltrator (who didn't need to go into that level of detail). That was a long drawn-out argument. We eventually compromised with a house rule that if you had the sub-category, you could roll your skill normally; if you lacked it, you could still make the roll at -2. Incidentally, most of the hyper-detailed technical skills never came into play but the campaign was aborted about 6 months in.


Personally I like the skill system in Hero a lot. It has granularity for games that want that, but can also be implemented simplistically for those that prefer it that way.


I don't know, this is an issue that may be better addressed by greater discussion in the book on running a high detail game versus a low detail game. Perhaps points could be provided both for how powerful the characters are supposed to be (which could be spent anywhere) and for how detailed (which would be spent only on Background Skills, Perks, and so on).

I think that GamePhil is on the right track here. I think we need better discussion of how detailed to make the skill system with solid examples of a handful of common genres (superhero & pulp hero having broad skills vs dark champs & cyberhero having detailed skills).


If you can please point out where it says that not having Background Skills prevents you from using the main Skill, I'll be on board at least somewhat with your argument.

Not quite what you're talking about but in the case of Animal Handling and Survival sub-categories (along with the sub-categories of Electronics, Systems Operation and Computer Programming given in Star Hero), you cannot use the skill for any sub-categories not selected. I think that's a rule that needs to be made option for those campaigns that need that level of detail.

[GamePhil]

Ah, the old 60pt Lawyer dilema.


Yup. Usually not a good thing.



Not quite what you're talking about but in the case of Animal Handling and Survival sub-categories (along with the sub-categories of Electronics, Systems Operation and Computer Programming given in Star Hero), you cannot use the skill for any sub-categories not selected. I think that's a rule that needs to be made option for those campaigns that need that level of detail.

True, no argument there. I so completely believe that should be optional depending on the game that I forgot it isn't already explicitely so. Still not as bad as suddenly finding out that the lack of KS: Corporate Law dooms you to being unable to succeed with your Persuasion skill, though.

[Lucius]

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding this....

The point is to encourage players to dump maximum possible points into characteristics at the START of play, and discourage them from improving characteristics with experience afterwards?

Lucius Alexander

And a puzzled palindromedary

[Kdansky]

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding this....

The point is to encourage players to dump maximum possible points into characteristics at the START of play, and discourage them from improving characteristics with experience afterwards?

Lucius Alexander

And a puzzled palindromedary

Thats exactly how GURPS does it, (or did, in third) and it works out terribly. At character generation, characters have as few skills as possible and get into trouble when they are supposed to roll anything, because they spent 145 points in stats and 5 points into skills. And then when they get some exp, they only buy skills, because stats are now twice as expensive, which results in extremly broad skill selection and extremly good rolls due to high stats from before.
All in all, its a failure however you look at it. And I cant do apostrophes on this keyboard, sorry.

Im just throwing this out:

What about changing the pricing structure like that:

1 point gives you an 6 + CHA / 10 roll
2 points 7 + CHA / 5
3 points 8 + CHA / 4

or something like that? Would allow for higher granularity too, although I suspect it would overvalue characteristics.

Also, Im all for keeping characterstics, that may not be sensible, but skills are already not really cheap compared to powers.

[Lucius]

Thats exactly how GURPS does it, (or did, in third) and it works out terribly. At character generation, characters have as few skills as possible and get into trouble when they are supposed to roll anything, because they spent 145 points in stats and 5 points into skills. And then when they get some exp, they only buy skills, because stats are now twice as expensive, which results in extremly broad skill selection and extremly good rolls due to high stats from before.
All in all, its a failure however you look at it. And I cant do apostrophes on this keyboard, sorry.

So why are some people opposed to consistancy, which they call "point recursion?"

This doesn't make any sense to me. A character is an organic whole. If I see a DEX of 18 and a Stealth roll of <= 12 I'm going to assume the player made a math mistake - not that the Stealth skill was bought when the DEX was lower. That's like saying my punch is 2d6 because my STR is 10 when I start the game, and if the character buys STR up to 15 the basic damage is still 2d6...I just don't get it?:confused:

And I don't like systems that imply that there is something special and magic about the specific moment in a character's life when it becomes a :hex:Player Character:hex: - usually something very detrimental to the character, actually.

If my character has Streetwise because he literally grew up on the street, does that mean his base Streetwise roll is only 9 - because he started learning the skill as an abandoned child with a PRE of 5? Or is it 12, because by the time he starts play he's an adult with a PRE of 15? If the latter, shouldn't it rise to 13 when his first few adventures improve his courage, confidence, and heroic demeaner until his PRE is 18? Have I handicapped his development by making him a player character?

I think a fundamental aspect of the Hero System is that Experience Points ARE Character Points. If I spend "X" amount of points on "Y," I should get the same "Y" regardless of whether those are initial points or experience points. What next, a distinction between something bought with base points or with points from Disadvantages?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary thinks this post is taking up far too much time and effort to point out why a bad idea is in fact a bad idea. Drop it and move on, Lucius.

[rjcurrie]

So why are some people opposed to consistancy, which they call "point recursion?"

This doesn't make any sense to me. A character is an organic whole. If I see a DEX of 18 and a Stealth roll of <= 12 I'm going to assume the player made a math mistake - not that the Stealth skill was bought when the DEX was lower. That's like saying my punch is 2d6 because my STR is 10 when I start the game, and if the character buys STR up to 15 the basic damage is still 2d6...I just don't get it?:confused:

And I don't like systems that imply that there is something special and magic about the specific moment in a character's life when it becomes a :hex:Player Character:hex: - usually something very detrimental to the character, actually.

If my character has Streetwise because he literally grew up on the street, does that mean his base Streetwise roll is only 9 - because he started learning the skill as an abandoned child with a PRE of 5? Or is it 12, because by the time he starts play he's an adult with a PRE of 15? If the latter, shouldn't it rise to 13 when his first few adventures improve his courage, confidence, and heroic demeaner until his PRE is 18? Have I handicapped his development by making him a player character?

I think a fundamental aspect of the Hero System is that Experience Points ARE Character Points. If I spend "X" amount of points on "Y," I should get the same "Y" regardless of whether those are initial points or experience points. What next, a distinction between something bought with base points or with points from Disadvantages?

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary thinks this post is taking up far too much time and effort to point out why a bad idea is in fact a bad idea. Drop it and move on, Lucius.

I agree with both Lucius and the palindromedary. :)

[Susano]

I agree with both Lucius and the palindromedary. :)

So do I.

[steamteck]

I'll add a fourth to that.

[Shike019]

Ah, the old 60pt Lawyer dilema.

Should you have to buy KS: Corporate Law, KS: Criminal Law, PS: Defense Attourney, PS: Prosocuting Attourney, etc. for 60 pts or just buy KS: Law and PS: Lawyer for 6 point). Typically, the correct answer is: If you're playing Law & Order Hero, do the first; in most other campaigns do the second.

I've gotten into this argument with one of the other GMs in my group. At the time, it was while we were prepping for a Star Hero campaign. He was all for breaking down Electrinics, Computer Programming and all the other technical skills down into the detailed components given in Star Hero mainly because there were rules to cover it and it "helped better define the character". I was against that idea since it would make the mechanic and computer expert over-priced compared to the pilot, doctor and infiltrator (who didn't need to go into that level of detail). That was a long drawn-out argument. We eventually compromised with a house rule that if you had the sub-category, you could roll your skill normally; if you lacked it, you could still make the roll at -2. Incidentally, most of the hyper-detailed technical skills never came into play but the campaign was aborted about 6 months in.





I think that GamePhil is on the right track here. I think we need better discussion of how detailed to make the skill system with solid examples of a handful of common genres (superhero & pulp hero having broad skills vs dark champs & cyberhero having detailed skills).



Not quite what you're talking about but in the case of Animal Handling and Survival sub-categories (along with the sub-categories of Electronics, Systems Operation and Computer Programming given in Star Hero), you cannot use the skill for any sub-categories not selected. I think that's a rule that needs to be made option for those campaigns that need that level of detail.

I have to agree that in most situations, KS: Law will do the trick. What my GM does is takes into account what your Skill is, and say, if you have KS: Law it is a little more difficult to recall the information, but if you have KS: Corporate Law you can recite it like you read it yesterday. He also does the reverse, if you have a more specific skill he will allow a roll, w/ penalties, to see if the more general information, or related information, was something you picked up in your characters training/studying.

[IndianaJoe3]

Q: Should we change the Skill rules so that Skills aren’t based on Characteristics?
Generally, no. Background skills are a reasonable exception.


Q: Should we make all the Skills “consistent” in terms of how they’re purchased?No, since the various types of skill (stat-based, background, and combat) all work in different ways.


Q: Should we reduce or increase the number of Skills in the core rulebook?Maybe a bit of both. Add Research (from TUS), and get rid of Weaponsmith and Animal Handler.


Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?They're mostly fine. I use a house rule that damage from martial maneuvers doesn't stack with any attack that a character has paid points for (except STR). If they want a bigger attack, they need to buy more dice. :shock:

[Hugh Neilson]

I think a fundamental aspect of the Hero System is that Experience Points ARE Character Points. If I spend "X" amount of points on "Y," I should get the same "Y" regardless of whether those are initial points or experience points. What next, a distinction between something bought with base points or with points from Disadvantages?

Agree. When a new player (or PC) joins the game, they commonly get some xp to be comparable with established characters. Applying and enforcing the "it costs more after the character starts out" rule would be very difficult in such circumstances.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah, the old 60pt Lawyer dilema.

Should you have to buy KS: Corporate Law, KS: Criminal Law, PS: Defense Attourney, PS: Prosocuting Attourney, etc. for 60 pts or just buy KS: Law and PS: Lawyer for 6 point). Typically, the correct answer is: If you're playing Law & Order Hero, do the first; in most other campaigns do the second.

I'd like to take this one step further. In a game based around superheoric combat, the legal issues are readily solved by PS Lawyer and KS Law. However, combat should be resolved with the much more complex system of attacks, defenses, STUN, BOD, etc. that we have for combat. Combat is where most of the dramatic tension in such games arises.

In Law & Order Hero, I think it would be preferable to have a more complex and intricate task resolution mechanic for courtroom battles, analagous to combat in games which focus around combat. And, in such games, task resoultion for a fistfight could be reduced to opposed rolls of relevant skills, since it's not where the dramatic focus of the game lies.

Similarly, in a game of medieval political maneuvering, perhaps interaction needs a combat-like resolution mehanic, but the occasional duel would be resolved by opposed Swordsmanship rolls. This would differ from the more typical fantasy game where combat is resolved with the more complex task resolution system, and interaction skills with the less detailed roll or opposed roll system.

[TSandman]

And I don't like systems that imply that there is something special and magic about the specific moment in a character's life when it becomes a :hex:Player Character:hex: - usually something very detrimental to the character, actually.

THIS is a selling point in favor of HERO to me and my group.

In D&D, you ca only inprove your skills each level. the rest is on a railroad track or you can only do it on this or that level (feats, improved abilities).

In nWoD, you better be loading up on high skills/stats, else it'll cost an arm and a leg to get your Dexterity to 4 (4 starting points, 20 xp thereafter)

In many other games you can't even get higher stats, only skills.

With HERO, it's so easy to integrate a new pc to a group knowing that the player wouldn't be able to play the system as much as others, since its only "some more points" (in D&D and nWoD you can easily find the way to buy some stats very high and pay the low ones with XPs, so as to have more stats/skills)

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to take this one step further. In a game based around superheoric combat, the legal issues are readily solved by PS Lawyer and KS Law. However, combat should be resolved with the much more complex system of attacks, defenses, STUN, BOD, etc. that we have for combat. Combat is where most of the dramatic tension in such games arises.

In Law & Order Hero, I think it would be preferable to have a more complex and intricate task resolution mechanic for courtroom battles, analagous to combat in games which focus around combat. And, in such games, task resoultion for a fistfight could be reduced to opposed rolls of relevant skills, since it's not where the dramatic focus of the game lies.

Similarly, in a game of medieval political maneuvering, perhaps interaction needs a combat-like resolution mehanic, but the occasional duel would be resolved by opposed Swordsmanship rolls. This would differ from the more typical fantasy game where combat is resolved with the more complex task resolution system, and interaction skills with the less detailed roll or opposed roll system.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Hugh Neilson again.

[Lucius]

Thanks, guys, but I don't think the palindromedary needs any help kicking me around.

Lucius Alexander

Says who I don't?

[SylvanSnake]

I think the characteristic relation to skills makes a lot of sense and should be kept. However, I also aggree that the curve on 3d6 seems way too narrow. It is too easy for characters to spend a couple points and be grand masters with a skill. The best options I see are to change the dice type for rolls (3d8 or 3d10) or increase the number of dice rolled like a 4d6 or 5d6. By expanding the curve, it also reduces the impact of characteristics a bit and that might be a good change as well.

[JmOz]

What about merging PS, KS, and SS into one skill?

[nexus]

What about merging PS, KS, and SS into one skill?

Personally, I wouldn't like it. I love the way Hero divides knowing ABOUT something and knowing HOW to do it (and how to make a profit/be successful at it). From the stand point of simplification I could understand it but it wouldn't thrill me and would be one of those things I'd have to House Rule back in.

Edit: Perhaps make KS/PS default to each other at a substantial penalty and GM discretion? Fpr example, My character has KS: Computers. She knows the background, history, basic theory big names, etc in the computer world but doesn't have computer programming. She might have picked up a little in her research so could use KS computer at a -5 or something for simple computer tasks. She might be able to break a parent lock code on her parent' computer but she's not hacking into NORAD anytime soon.

[JmOz]

My issue is more with skill proalification (sp), it use to be PS: Lawyer implied you knew a thing or two about the law, I think we should get back to that in theory for most games. Now of course Law and Order Hero you would need an arm length of law skills, but really should Daredevil need that may lawyer skills? I figure if they are related that it might cut down on it some.

Of course it depends on the focus of the game, one overall theme I want to see in 6th is the idea of focus, that which the specific campeign will focus on gets more attention and points dedicated to it than that which will be glossed over. In a super hero world, being a lawyer is a job, it should only take a few points, the focus is arresting the villain, in a courtroom drama, it is more importand and should be expanded on...

[nexus]

My issue is more with skill proalification (sp), it use to be PS: Lawyer implied you knew a thing or two about the law, I think we should get back to that in theory for most games. Now of course Law and Order Hero you would need an arm length of law skills, but really should Daredevil need that may lawyer skills? I figure if they are related that it might cut down on it some.

Of course it depends on the focus of the game, one overall theme I want to see in 6th is the idea of focus, that which the specific campaign will focus on gets more attention and points dedicated to it than that which will be glossed over. In a super hero world, being a lawyer is a job, it should only take a few points, the focus is arresting the villain, in a courtroom drama, it is more import and and should be expanded on...

I think it would be more a campaign specific thing. The GM can say "All you need to be a lawyer is to take PS: Lawyer* as your everyone man occupational skill" or not. Even one superhero game might focus more on skills than another. I think a note in the skills chapter could go far without eliminating three categories of skills. I think Hero should be modular. You take its framework, chip away things, maybe bolt on some optional extras unto you have "your game/setting" The core rules should "tell" you as little as possible about how your game should work.

[Kdansky]

Yes, the palindromedary scored a perfect game there. And I cannot rep you, KAAAAAHHHNN!!!


What about merging PS, KS, and SS into one skill?
I would advise against it. I like the possibility of separation, but if a player wants a more generic skill, he can have it (for stuff that does not come up all the time).


I think the characteristic relation to skills makes a lot of sense and should be kept. However, I also aggree that the curve on 3d6 seems way too narrow. It is too easy for characters to spend a couple points and be grand masters with a skill. The best options I see are to change the dice type for rolls (3d8 or 3d10) or increase the number of dice rolled like a 4d6 or 5d6. By expanding the curve, it also reduces the impact of characteristics a bit and that might be a good change as well.
If you add dice, it gets worse...

[Southern Cross]

Same here.

[Opal]

If you can please point out where it says that not having Background Skills prevents you from using the main Skill, I'll be on board at least somewhat with your argument.. Well, there are a few skills, like Survival, that you have to buy up to use in more than one aplication, and there are skill's which have fuzzy borders between them. The phenomenon of /not being able/ to use a primary skills for lack of a background is more a GM one - there's nothing in the rules to force a GM to do that, and nothing much to keep him from doing it - but some GMs certainly do it.

I would like to see the system more clearly work from a finite list of skills that handle basically everything (since it is a universeal system), with levels or complementary background skills adding detail and making you a little better with more specific uses of the skill.

Ideally, I'd also want the top level skills to be generic.

[SAVeira]

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

No, I like my skills Characteristics based.


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

Sure, sounds like a good idea.


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

Do not reduce the number of skills. However, pluse do add the new skills from The Ultimate Skill, such as Research.


Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

I am going with Door #2.


Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

No. The current method is nice and easy.


Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

No. I would request that they are moved out of Skills and given their own section like Talents and Perks are.

[dsatow]

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

I would keep it the current way however saying that, here is a suggestion.
Make all skills cost a base 5 points for an 8- with +1 per 1 points. For every 5 points in a characteristic, the base cost in the skill goes down by 1 point with a minimum cost of 1 point (thus a characteristic over 20 does not help). This basically shows that people with a high natural characteristic may be more inclined to learn the skill and have an easier time mastering the skill than others


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

Personally, I am of the camp that if all skills (not including language and martial arts) cost 3 points base and +1 per 2 (or even 1) would be a good idea. I dislike all the adders to skills and think the adders should be changed to complimentary skills.

Example: Computer programming. In 5e, it got a bunch of adders. This is most likely in response to the number of computer geeks attracted to the game in real life. While it added to the 'realism' of the game, I didn't think it really added all that much to the game. In most books and shows, a computer geek who can program a PC can easily hack the local city's public works system (ex: Willow in Buffy, any geek in a comic book, etc.)

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

I think you keep it the same. I don't see a great need for more skills.

Q: Should we change or streamline Combat Skill Levels?

I personally think many 3 point levels are 5 point levels in disguise. The biggest problem I have is martial arts. For three points, in regards to martial arts they are effectively 8 point levels. I think martial arts levels should be 5 points. Beyond that, I think they are fine the way they are now.

Q: Should Languages be done as Intellect Skills?

I am not against this but I don't think the current method is broken. If it ain't broken, why fix it?


Q: Should Martial Arts be changed?

For the most part, I think martial arts are ok, but I have a few problems.
1) (minor issue) NND and KA since not strength based do not scale as well as other powers that add to strength. At low levels its not a problem but try using it in a 15d6 game with a 20 strength MA. Without supplements from powers, it just doesn't work.
2) (major issue) Allowing someone to buy HA or HTHKA and adding that to martial arts can be too cheap, especially if the power has some advantage.
EX: I buy my +2d6 HA NND (def: defenses affect desolid or desolid) Does body. I am phasing being who is able to do this by reaching into your guts partially phased. I then add my Martial arts and strength in. Yeesh!
3) (minor issue) As you said, the cost for martial arts does not relate well to the amount of advantages you get out of them point for point. But increasing the point cost for them may break lower level games.

Personally, I think you could detach martial arts from strength. A +2d6 attack would do 4d6 or be the equivalent to 20 Strength, a +4d6 attack would do 6d6 or 30 strength. You could then use 4 pts to increase things by 1 DC. The only problem with this is bricks with martial arts would end up paying twice but it does eliminate the problem of how inexpensive martial arts are, make all martial manuevers about equal, and because it converts to strength allow all those strength powered items to be less twiddly. I would drop the extra damage dice from 4 points to 3 points if you did this though.

[GamePhil]

Well, there are a few skills, like Survival, that you have to buy up to use in more than one aplication, and there are skill's which have fuzzy borders between them.


Still not the infinite skill bloat you've been complaining about, but sure, I agree that the sub-skills should be optional: Survival is just 3 points, unless the GM wants greater detail.



The phenomenon of /not being able/ to use a primary skills for lack of a background is more a GM one - there's nothing in the rules to force a GM to do that, and nothing much to keep him from doing it - but some GMs certainly do it.


So, nothing to do with the rules, but with individual GMs misinterpretations thereof. Still not a matter of changing the Skills, just a matter of a better explanation, though frankly the lack of anything saying "You must have background skill X to perform skill Y" is pretty telling, as is "You can use background skill X to improve skill Y", which certainly implies the exact opposite of X is required for Y.



Ideally, I'd also want the top level skills to be generic.

All for it, as long as it is, like the more detailed skills, optional. I only object to your hyperbole. Everything you've said and everything I've read leads me to believe that most of the issue is with your GMs use of the rules, or yours since you admit to having done this, not with the rules themselves.

[Steve Long]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. Something like "Charm" or the like would work better.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've always assumed the sexual implications were part of the Skill. But I'm also aware that that's probably not only what it's used for. How about breaking them into separate Skills? There are enough examples in literature and cinema of people who are good at charming or manipulating others into giving them what they want without it necessarily being sexual, and there are as many or more examples of people who are sexual "players" without necessarily going after the non-romantic aspects.

[nexus]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. Something like "Charm" or the like would work better.

That is a fair point though I'm personally fond of the name Seduction. Charm could work (but sounds a bit magical). Maybe "Manipulate" or "Influence"? Honestly, the skill could be just lumped in with Persuasion and not much would be lost beyond an aesthetic level or make Seduction completely about romantic/sexual influence but that might be a little narrow for Hero System skill unless it was expanded in some fashion.

[archermoo]

That is a fair point though I'm personally fond of the name Seduction. Charm could work (but sounds a bit magical). Maybe "Manipulate" or "Influence"? Honestly, the skill could be just lumped in with Persuasion and not much would be lost beyond an aesthetic level or make Seduction completely about romantic/sexual influence but that might be a little narrow for Hero System skill unless it was expanded in some fashion.

I like Manipulate. :)

[nexus]

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

[BobGreenwade]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. Something like "Charm" or the like would work better.Charm or (as archermoo suggests) Manipulate could work fine as a new name.

Even if you don't change the name, a clarifying statement in the first (or possibly second) paragraph would be very, very helpful. After all, even with a name like Seduction, it's still quite possible to be seduced by power, seduced by money, seduced by fame, and so forth.

[Kdansky]

Seduction!? I like the sexual flavour! Clearly what the skill is meant to be. Just because gamers/religious people (favourite bash target of mine, excuse please) are afraid of sex should not tabu-ise (is that even a word?) it.
OTOH: I really don't care on a personal level.

[Supreme Serpent]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. Something like "Charm" or the like would work better.

Changing the name would be fine, but I don't think really necessary. Although a case could be made that you could get the same effects out of Persuasion and Bribery (bribing with company vs. $), making the skill unnecessary. Heck, could roll Bribery up under Persuasion too, with appropriate bribes just giving situation bonuses to the Persuasion roll.

[archermoo]

Charm or (as archermoo suggests) Manipulate could work fine as a new name.

I just seconded Nexus' suggestion. :)

[archermoo]

Changing the name would be fine, but I don't think really necessary. Although a case could be made that you could get the same effects out of Persuasion and Bribery (bribing with company vs. $), making the skill unnecessary. Heck, could roll Bribery up under Persuasion too, with appropriate bribes just giving situation bonuses to the Persuasion roll.

I could see Bribery being a complimentary skill to a Persuasion check, but I think it is still a separate skill. Knowing who and how much to bribe, as opposed to knowing how to persuade people.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?
Sure, but I do not like the name "Charm" any more then Seduction. I did like nexus suggestion of "Manipulate".

[GamePhil]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?


Not one I care much about, but I believe that Manipulate carries the same connotation of "getting someone to do something they wouldn't normally do" without the sexual connotation. PS: Seduction could always be bought as a Complimentary Skill for those interested in the latter.

[Utech]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

I prefer "Fast Talk".

[Susano]

I prefer "Fast Talk".

That'd be "Persuasion."

[Opal]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. It took me a few minutes, when the skill first came out, to understand that it could be used between any two characters, in spite of the name, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. 'Seduction' is used in English as a metaphor for being drawn into any sort of position or alliance through less than rational means.

I suppose you could change it to something more neutral, like 'Befriend.' Ultimately, it's a bit like D&D Diplomacy: it just changes peoples' attitude towards you.

[steamteck]

That is a fair point though I'm personally fond of the name Seduction. Charm could work (but sounds a bit magical). Maybe "Manipulate" or "Influence"? Honestly, the skill could be just lumped in with Persuasion and not much would be lost beyond an aesthetic level or make Seduction completely about romantic/sexual influence but that might be a little narrow for Hero System skill unless it was expanded in some fashion.


Agreed on all points.

[steamteck]

I've always assumed the sexual implications were part of the Skill. But I'm also aware that that's probably not only what it's used for. How about breaking them into separate Skills? There are enough examples in literature and cinema of people who are good at charming or manipulating others into giving them what they want without it necessarily being sexual, and there are as many or more examples of people who are sexual "players" without necessarily going after the non-romantic aspects.


I'll agree with that.

[SuperPheemy]

If you're gonna get rid of Seduction, then make it a function of Persuasion, since there's a ton of overlap between the two. Persuasion has very few negative implications with regards to delicate social situations (as has been pointed out earlier, "Manipulation" when it comes to seduction starts to tread on the "oogey" side of things).

[Chris Goodwin]

If you're gonna get rid of Seduction, then make it a function of Persuasion, since there's a ton of overlap between the two. Persuasion has very few negative implications with regards to delicate social situations (as has been pointed out earlier, "Manipulation" when it comes to seduction starts to tread on the "oogey" side of things).

True. I've been thinking over the Interaction-based Skills we have, and at least one seems to fill the role of "Seduction minus the sexual aspects". Might there be others? If so, we can keep Seduction with only the sexual aspects (possibly as an optional skill, or one for the "Where Did It Go?" section).

[rjcurrie]

True. I've been thinking over the Interaction-based Skills we have, and at least one seems to fill the role of "Seduction minus the sexual aspects". Might there be others? If so, we can keep Seduction with only the sexual aspects (possibly as an optional skill, or one for the "Where Did It Go?" section).

The rules have always stated that Seduction has much more than the sexual aspects to it. It is the skill for befriending someone. I'm really not sure that the other interaction skills actually cover this aspect. The best alternative name for Seduction that I can think of is "Befriend" or "Charm" but those don't really fit the pattern of using nouns for skill names.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Rod: I think it does need a new name. One of the PCs in my Star Hero campaign had Seduction but his "special effect" was that he was a blue collar mechanic that made friends really quickly. It worked great in game play but the name needs a tweak...Befriend? I heard Diplomacy...that might not be too bad.

[rjcurrie]

Hi Rod: I think it does need a new name. One of the PCs in my Star Hero campaign had Seduction but his "special effect" was that he was a blue collar mechanic that made friends really quickly. It worked great in game play but the name needs a tweak...Befriend? I heard Diplomacy...that might not be too bad.

Hey John. My problem with Diplomacy is that it implies (at least to me) a negotiation component that I don't really see as part of this skill.

[nexus]

Hm, I have to reconsider my minor objection to Charm now that I think about it since the skill is partially about befriending, offer companionship in exchange for favors or gifts or acquiring companionship.

Maybe

Charisma?

Carouse?

Seduction as in romantic seduction only might be applicable enough to stand on its own as a skill. It does in other games. A possible additional function for Seduction (and I hope I don't offend anyone) is sexual prowess. Pre seems an odd base for that ability but its probably as applicable as anything else and skill at romantic initiating and performing romantic endeavors is pretty tied in "Dramatic Realism".

[ajackson]

The thing is, most of the non-seduction uses of seduction are covered by either Conversation or Persuasion. I'd rather just leave Seduction as Seduction and admit that it's a fairly focused skill.

[nexus]

I think its come up before but I'd like to mention the idea of not so much decoupling skills from Characteristics but make them open bonuses to characteristic rolls that can be applied when they seem applicable.

Say someone gets Computer Programming +2. Usually this applies to their Intellect rolls but in some cases (like trying to get in good with a group of computer geeks) it might apply to their Pre roll at least for a complimentary skill roll.

[rjcurrie]

The thing is, most of the non-seduction uses of seduction are covered by either Conversation or Persuasion. I'd rather just leave Seduction as Seduction and admit that it's a fairly focused skill.

I disagree, I don't think Conversation and Persuasion cover your ability to make friends with people at all. Unless your only reason for having friends is to get information from them or make them do things.

[SuperPheemy]

Carouse?

Carouse worked fine for decades worth of Traveller Characters.

[ajackson]

I disagree, I don't think Conversation and Persuasion cover your ability to make friends with people at all.
You think of seduction as being about making friends? Seduction is about getting someone who will do what you want them to do. Being sociable I assume is conversation or high society, and making actual friends (as opposed to contacts) is generally not covered by a skill.

[Teflon Billy]

Carouse worked fine for decades worth of Traveller Characters.Not that I want to encourage dumbing things down, carouse is not a word in common use and most people would have a hard time properly defining it.

For myself, I'd normally use it in speech for "inciting (drunken)revelry" more than "become friends." More importantly Merriam-Webster agrees with me

TB

[archermoo]

You think of seduction as being about making friends? Seduction is about getting someone who will do what you want them to do. Being sociable I assume is conversation or high society, and making actual friends (as opposed to contacts) is generally not covered by a skill.

Conversation is the ability to get intelligence from someone without them knowing you are getting it. High Society is the knowledge of and ability to interact with the upper class culture. Persuasion is the ability to convince, persuade, or influence people, or tell believable lies. Seduction is the ability to gain others' trust and even friendship by offering companionship or favors.

[Hugh Neilson]

Conversation is the ability to get intelligence from someone without them knowing you are getting it. High Society is the knowledge of and ability to interact with the upper class culture. Persuasion is the ability to convince, persuade, or influence people, or tell believable lies. Seduction is the ability to gain others' trust and even friendship by offering companionship or favors.

These definitions should appear as the descriptions for these skills. They summarize and contrast each one perfectly.

[Chris Goodwin]

Conversation is the ability to get intelligence from someone without them knowing you are getting it. High Society is the knowledge of and ability to interact with the upper class culture. Persuasion is the ability to convince, persuade, or influence people, or tell believable lies. Seduction is the ability to gain others' trust and even friendship by offering companionship or favors.

The way you've described these, it sounds like there's a lot of overlap between Seduction and Persuasion. That's just my interpetation, though.

[ajackson]

These definitions should appear as the descriptions for these skills. They summarize and contrast each one perfectly.
They mostly do, though he left out a key issue about Conversation (Conversation skill is also the ability to be an interesting or entertaining conversationalist), and the rest of the text of Seduction makes it clear that the main point of Seduction is that it gets you someone who's inclined to do what you want them to do, which is pretty much the main point of Persuasion as well.

[archermoo]

These definitions should appear as the descriptions for these skills. They summarize and contrast each one perfectly.


The way you've described these, it sounds like there's a lot of overlap between Seduction and Persuasion. That's just my interpetation, though.

The descriptions are from the skills in the book. :) Though I'll admit that I did the Conversation one from memory...

[Shoutybloke]

The way you've described these, it sounds like there's a lot of overlap between Seduction and Persuasion. That's just my interpetation, though.
Look at it this way: Persuasion is used to get people to do something- free the hostages, find George guilty/innocent ect. Seduction on the other hand is about creating emotiona states- getting people to like you. If you get someone to do something based on its merits, real or percieved, that's persausion. If you do something because of your positive emotional response to me, that's seduction.

[James Gillen]

As promised, more grist for the mill. For all I know someone's raised this one already, but I'm waiting to read most of these threads until I'm ready to begin writing. ;)

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

Steve's Thoughts: I think so. It has sexual implications that often aren't appropriate or pertinent. Something like "Charm" or the like would work better.


I like "Charm" and "Manipulate" has even more negative (read: Machiavellian) connotations than "Seduction." I'd say manipulation is covered by Persuasion anyway. I had one fairly religious player who wanted an 'influence' skill for her character but didn't see her as a femme fatale or the like. So I went along with calling the skill "Charm", which suited her concept better.

JG

[AnotherSkip]

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-

Actually, for those of us who play White Wolf this is not all that far off or strange of an idea. Sure it is unlikely you wil need a Str + System Operations Roll untill you are pinned under an 800 lb sentient computer you have to wrestle AND reprogram at the same time..... oooh Doc Random so could do that....:drink:

[AnotherSkip]

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.

This may be a myopism from an american POV but what about having your International Team having in the Everyman Skills:
[4] Primary/Favorite Country language,
[2](up to x21) Other Native Languages of Country.

Which may be Something along the lines of Steves "if it aint gonna come up give it to them for free" comment.

if you are worried about points, Universal translator with limitations may be the other solution.

(then Buy linguist and viola they are at the 3 point level..... :)

In addition if you have specific knowledge of languages you may have to redesign the charts to reflect your linguistic understanding. However in most cases most campaigns won't need that level of detail. Having never used yiddish, ect... in a campaign redesigning the languages for your campaign may be useful or necessary but in my case a smaller language chart with something else using the space may be a better choice for me.

[AnotherSkip]

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.

Not to say this a bad idea just that in a system where this is supposed to occur (White Wolf) in my group the frequency of this being used in virtually nill.... even when brought up to the GM.

[AnotherSkip]

I think its come up before but I'd like to mention the idea of not so much decoupling skills from Characteristics but make them open bonuses to characteristic rolls that can be applied when they seem applicable.

Say someone gets Computer Programming +2. Usually this applies to their Intellect rolls but in some cases (like trying to get in good with a group of computer geeks) it might apply to their Pre roll at least for a complimentary skill roll.

This is what White Wolf Does: Decoupled only in the sense of :not permanently attached to one char, still needs a relevant Char. makes having alot of other high stats useful in addition to having one uber stat (say Dex). and decouples some of the need to assign modifiers by the Gm since swtiching stats can do the same thing.

Perhaps a bid skill + stat and if needed present reasoning. Thus making sure the Gm is on the same page as the players and making the Skill more dramatic in use by forcing more attention/forethought And adding description not a bad thing for the game system overall.

[AnotherSkip]

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

The Good thing about the rolling high part is I wouldn't have to switch out my er uhm... "probablility enhanced" dice so often...

[IndianaJoe3]

Look at it this way: Persuasion is used to get people to do something- free the hostages, find George guilty/innocent ect. Seduction on the other hand is about creating emotiona states- getting people to like you. If you get someone to do something based on its merits, real or percieved, that's persausion. If you do something because of your positive emotional response to me, that's seduction.
I see the difference as being one of relationships. With Persuasion, you want the target to do something now and don't really care what has happened before or will happen later. "Hey, mac, can you buzz me in? The mag strip on my ID card got wiped. Thanks." With Seduction, there's a relationship involved. "Sal, remember how I helped you get your business started? I need a favor."

[AnotherSkip]

And I don't like systems that imply that there is something special and magic about the specific moment in a character's life when it becomes a :hex:Player Character:hex: - usually something very detrimental to the character, actually. .

cuz dat is da point at which da Gm gets ta start B***h S**p the Character 'round in dere games?

[AnotherSkip]

Here is something that we could do,

In addition to the temporal usages suggestion of putting ideas/guidelines for how long something should take in each skill deescription,
how about we name the ability-to-perform-a-skill-faster-than-the-time-required-to-do-so?
I thought something along the lines of hurry but of course we have the combat mechanic named that allready.

Any Suggestions?

on the other hand how about PSL's for skill usages in certain situations?

AND
How do ppl feel about say someone with the sleight of hand skill being able to turn off powered devices or remove OIF: many OAF in less time than a full turn out of combat (SFX: Speedster or Stretchy Guy).
Viable use or terrible abuse?

[MPT]

One of my players has suggested that the cost of skills should increase at higher levels e.g. for a 3/2 skill it should cost 3pts to go from 15 to 16, 4pts to go from 16 to 17 and 5pts to go from 17 to 18. His argument is that both in real life and in most other systems it is easy to get the basics of a skill but it takes a lot more effort to get really good at it.

Whilst I don't totally agree with him that this would be suitable for the HERO system, I do think that it should cost extra to change from a 17- skill to an 18- one as the 18- gives you the possibility of making an Extraordinary Skill Roll at -10, and this should be worth a bit extra.

[MPT]

JG: 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.

I definately agree with this. Whilst it would be impossible to apply this to every possible use of a skill, some guidelines would be useful - e.g. how long does it take to train and animal.

[Blue]

So. Divorcing skills from stats.

Character... We'll call him "Stuntman Stu"
15 STR
18 DEX
13 CON
12 BODY

7pts...Acrobatics +2
9pts...Breakfall +3

Stu is on the hood of a car in a "surfing" position as it goes 40 mph. The GM decides this is a DEX + Acrobatics roll. He gets a base 15- acrobatics roll before mods.

Next, he has to leap from the hood through the window of a passing truck. The GM decides that since he has sufficient leaping strength he just needs to make an attack roll on the moving spot, but a Breakfall + DEX could help land the right way (as in, not on his head).

Ultimately, he and the truck's driver end up in a fistfight on hood of the driverless car. To remain standing during the fight, each time one attacks or is successfully hit for damage, they must make a Acrobatics + Dex roll, with modifiers.

In the end, the driver plummets off and tumbles like mad. Stu, however, is on the hood when the car is stopped by a low wall and goes flying off, directly at another wall. Normally a Breakfall + DEX would be used, but there's no place to tumble, he's just going to splat. So the GM decides he can tough it out with a Breakfall + CON roll.

Question: Does this seem like unnecessary extra ajudicating and it's easier just to have a fixed roll that gets modified (Acrobatics or Breakfall always being DEX) or is it better to allow for the twisted combo of skills and stats, much like the World of Darkness systems?

[Vondy]

So. Divorcing skills from stats.

Character... We'll call him "Stuntman Stu"
15 STR
18 DEX
13 CON
12 BODY

7pts...Acrobatics +2
9pts...Breakfall +3

Stu is on the hood of a car in a "surfing" position as it goes 40 mph. The GM decides this is a DEX + Acrobatics roll. He gets a base 15- acrobatics roll before mods.

Next, he has to leap from the hood through the window of a passing truck. The GM decides that since he has sufficient leaping strength he just needs to make an attack roll on the moving spot, but a Breakfall + DEX could help land the right way (as in, not on his head).

Ultimately, he and the truck's driver end up in a fistfight on hood of the driverless car. To remain standing during the fight, each time one attacks or is successfully hit for damage, they must make a Acrobatics + Dex roll, with modifiers.

In the end, the driver plummets off and tumbles like mad. Stu, however, is on the hood when the car is stopped by a low wall and goes flying off, directly at another wall. Normally a Breakfall + DEX would be used, but there's no place to tumble, he's just going to splat. So the GM decides he can tough it out with a Breakfall + CON roll.

Question: Does this seem like unnecessary extra ajudicating and it's easier just to have a fixed roll that gets modified (Acrobatics or Breakfall always being DEX) or is it better to allow for the twisted combo of skills and stats, much like the World of Darkness systems?

It would work in general, but I see a specific problem with it. Basically: hero runs on a bell curve, but hero stats along, let alone skill plus stats, would result in target numbers that would essentially turn failure into a novelty. A character with a DEX 15 and Acrobatics +2 would need (if I understand your proposal) 17- to make their roll. The odds of rolling an 18 on 3d6 are pretty slim. Heck, the odds of rolls a 16-18 are pretty thin. Basically, you'd have to change the curve for this system to be reasonable. I think another method would be required.

[Blue]

It would work in general, but I see a specific problem with it. Basically: hero runs on a bell curve, but hero stats along, let alone skill plus stats, would result in target numbers that would essentially turn failure into a novelty. A character with a DEX 15 and Acrobatics +2 would need (if I understand your proposal) 17- to make their roll. The odds of rolling an 18 on 3d6 are pretty slim. Heck, the odds of rolls a 16-18 are pretty thin. Basically, you'd have to change the curve for this system to be reasonable. I think another method would be required.
Very insightful. Thanks.

[Vondy]

I do not recommend the following system (much). But, its another possibility:


All skills are purchased as 1 point for 8- or 2 points for 11- (about 62% chance of success).
11- skills can be increased at a cost of 1 point per +1.
9 + (Char/5) represents the maximum level the skill can raised to.
The wild card in the system is skill levels, which can raise the skill roll beyond 9 + (Char/5).


Why don't I recommend this system? Because: its good for a certain kind of gritty simulationist heroic play, but doesn't jive real well with cinematic or superheroic action. It is an option for people who want such a system.

Another option is to allow all skills to be purchased as general skills (11- at 2/1) or characteristic skills (9 + (Char/5) at 3/2) whether or not they are background or regular skills. I've done this in my games occassionally. Most of the time players bought all skills at 2/1 and 11- except for their "concept skills," which they bought at 3/2 and 9 + (char/5). It wasn't a rule, its just what happened. Skill levels tended to augment combat or areas of expertise. However, something to consider is:

At 2/1 and 11- a 20- roll is 20 points.
At 3/2 with a stat of 10 a 20- roll is 21 points.
At 3/2 with a stat of 13 a 20- roll is 20 points.
At 3/2 with a stat of 18 a 20- roll is 19 points.
At 3/2 with a stat of 23 a 20- roll is 17 Points.

And...

At 2/1 and 11- a roll of 14- is 5 Points.
At 3/2 and a stat of 10 a 14- roll is 9 Points.
At 3/2 and a stat of 13 a 14- roll is 7 Points.
At 3/2 and a stat of 18 a 14- roll is 5 Points.
At 3/2 and a stat of 23 a 14- roll is 3 Points.

So.... the only place in this system 9 + (Char/5) is desirable is when you 1) have a stat of 18-22 and aren't planning on purchasing the skill past 9+(Char/5)+1, or 2) you've got a stat of 23+. In other words, the only place this system works is at either end of the scale (superheroic-cinematic games where high stat based skill bases come into play OR gritty heroic games where skills are at a premium in comparison to stats as a result of play style). In the middle of the scale it could easily be abused.

[dsatow]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

No, instead I think you should maybe add a number of extra skills.
As you note, seduction has a sexual side to it but it also is more about tempting another character by their desires.

Charm to me indicates allows you to befriend people not out of desire butu because they feel comfortable around you. A charming person isn't really a seductive person butthey make you feel comfortable to be around. Its a Ginger vs MaryAnn effect noted in a different thread. Ginger has seduction. MaryAnn has charm.

I'd also create a skill called intimidate. While interrogate allows you to extract information out of someone, intimidate allows you to scare someone into submission or away. You see it a lot in films and its more than just a presence attack. Meek looking people can do just by the way they move or thier eyes.

Lastly, just popping my head, you might want to create a skill called Haggle. Some people can haggle and some people can't. It might allow a person to get a better deal than another or allow both sides to think they are ahead. For real life examples, just look in China Town in SF, at a Magic card trading session, or the main characters in the Myth books.

[Susano]

Q: Should we change the name of Seduction?

No, instead I think you should maybe add a number of extra skills.
As you note, seduction has a sexual side to it but it also is more about tempting another character by their desires.

Charm to me indicates allows you to befriend people not out of desire butu because they feel comfortable around you. A charming person isn't really a seductive person butthey make you feel comfortable to be around. Its a Ginger vs MaryAnn effect noted in a different thread. Ginger has seduction. MaryAnn has charm.

I'd also create a skill called intimidate. While interrogate allows you to extract information out of someone, intimidate allows you to scare someone into submission or away. You see it a lot in films and its more than just a presence attack. Meek looking people can do just by the way they move or thier eyes.

Lastly, just popping my head, you might want to create a skill called Haggle. Some people can haggle and some people can't. It might allow a person to get a better deal than another or allow both sides to think they are ahead. For real life examples, just look in China Town in SF, at a Magic card trading session, or the main characters in the Myth books.

Hero has "Intimidate" -- it's a mixture of PRE, PRE Attacks, and Reputation. "Haggle" is called "Trading."

[Vondy]

Hero has "Intimidate" -- it's a mixture of PRE, PRE Attacks, and Reputation. "Haggle" is called "Trading."

I find the presence attack and mental power mechanic something of a nuisance.

So, for me, Intimidate is a valid skill. As is an opposed presence roll with modifiers attached for more generic presence attacks.

[Susano]

I will admit a quicker resolution for most PRE attacks would be nice.

[Southern Cross]

So perhaps Seduction should be renamed "Tempt"?

[rjcurrie]

I will admit a quicker resolution for most PRE attacks would be nice.

On the other hand, I think they work just fine. It doesn't take long to add up a few d6 and subtract a number.

[rjcurrie]

So perhaps Seduction should be renamed "Tempt"?
Well, Temptation would be the noun form to fit the pattern of other skills and while temptation might be part of it, I don't think it realy covers what the Seduction skill does. To be honest, it may just be best to leave the name and assume that people will actually read the rules of what a skill does.

[Sean Waters]

I'd like to see an EGO based skill called something like 'Resolve' that you use to resist attempts at seduction, bribery and intimidation.

You could have an INT based skill called something like 'Socially Aware' that enabled you to spot and resist attempts at cunning, like acting, conversation.

You could have a PRE based skill ('Self confidence', maybe?) that enabled you to resisist oratory, persuasion and intimidation

Bureaucratics, High Society, Streetwise and Trading would resist themselves.

[i3ullseye]

I think decoupling the skills from the characteristics is a big step in devaluing some of the characteristics. Sure, while someone can certainly learn something they were not born with a natural apptitude for, there is no denying that someone with better balance and timing overall tends to be a better dancer at first or untrained for example. Can someone train to be better? Sure. But with equal training, that apptitude now comes back into play and they are not on equal footing any longer.

One thing to consider... and MANY of these discussions tend to bleed into each other out of neccessity, is if the basic die roll is changed, then the range of possible results change. the only way to get more granular modifiers is to increase the range. All of that now shifts how much a given characteristic can or will impact a certain skill.

So without knowing how we are leaning on die roll conventions, speaking to any details is moot. But certainly, skills must still tie to characteristics in many cases. If yout ake this away, you might as well have one basic skill and call it what you want.

There is nothing that says you can't split the difference however.

Again, like I said about the power breakdowns, I think the game already might have the perfect structure. Just define 3 type skills! Familiarity skills (languages and such fall into here...), Basic skills that have a flat target number, and then atribute modified skills... and one skill covers ALL these in basic mechanics discussions.

Now the simplified rules offerring explains these 3, while the rulebook can go into pages and pages of examples if you like, which is much like where we are at now. Then in a sidebar you can explore the possibility of counting EVERYTHING as a general skill, and do away with the characteristic based rolls, but be very clear how this shifts the points incentives on many characteristics.

[Sean Waters]

A couple of points, bearing in mind I like martial arts in Hero.

1. 5 point MA abilities are a lot more useful, point for point, than 3 or 4 point ones. Perhaps we could get rid of 5 and 3 point MA abilities and make them all 4 points?

2. There is a point where spending more on martial arts yields no returnt hat you couldn't get by spending the points on skill levels or DCs of damage instead, and that point is around 15 points of MAs. Not sure what we can do aboutt his - I'm just saying.

[AnotherSkip]

So. Divorcing skills from stats.

Character... We'll call him "Stuntman Stu"
15 STR
18 DEX
13 CON
12 BODY

7pts...Acrobatics +2
9pts...Breakfall +3

Stu is on the hood of a car in a "surfing" position as it goes 40 mph. The GM decides this is a DEX + Acrobatics roll. He gets a base 15- acrobatics roll before mods.

Next, he has to leap from the hood through the window of a passing truck. The GM decides that since he has sufficient leaping strength he just needs to make an attack roll on the moving spot, but a Breakfall + DEX could help land the right way (as in, not on his head).

Ultimately, he and the truck's driver end up in a fistfight on hood of the driverless car. To remain standing during the fight, each time one attacks or is successfully hit for damage, they must make a Acrobatics + Dex roll, with modifiers.

In the end, the driver plummets off and tumbles like mad. Stu, however, is on the hood when the car is stopped by a low wall and goes flying off, directly at another wall. Normally a Breakfall + DEX would be used, but there's no place to tumble, he's just going to splat. So the GM decides he can tough it out with a Breakfall + CON roll.

Question: Does this seem like unnecessary extra ajudicating and it's easier just to have a fixed roll that gets modified (Acrobatics or Breakfall always being DEX) or is it better to allow for the twisted combo of skills and stats, much like the World of Darkness systems?

Just to divorce this from my suggestions I would reccomend that we keep the 9+CHA/5 as a base so Stuntman Stu's manuvers would have a base of 12- for most of his Char, +3 for Breakfall, +2 for acrobatics, so a 15- for Con Or Str Based Breakfall, and a 16- for Dex Breakfall.
It may seem a bit Weirder but there are times when it comes to Rolling Sys ops with hefty penalty or trying to make a Sysops + Con for the 8 hr monitoring shift before the bad guys attack...

As the example shows most skill usages would still be the "default" of Breakfall+Dex but if Stuntman Stu had a grip on the broken windshiled and was trying to hang on while the driver pistolwhipped his hand in an attempt to get him off the truck Acrobatics + Con Woud probablly make sense there moreso than any other mechanic...

[Markdoc]

2. There is a point where spending more on martial arts yields no returnt hat you couldn't get by spending the points on skill levels or DCs of damage instead, and that point is around 15 points of MAs. Not sure what we can do aboutt his - I'm just saying.

And I'd say around 20 points :D - but whatever, you're still right.

My approach has been to throw out the whole hero martial arts system (we've already done that once, so why not again?) and build all martial arts maneuvers as talents. Since the vast majority are variants on "Boot to the head" they can be bundled into a multipower.

To build a well-rounded martial artist still requires an investment of 20 points or more, but now you end up with a system that scales and that gives you pretty much what you pay for - and which is more flexible to boot (so to speak) :D

Interestingly, if you do this, a master of Fromage-fu who buys one or two high value maneuvers and nothing else is more cost-effective than the multipower martial artist, at 15-25 points, they are of similar efficiency (I've run games where both methods were in play) and beyond that, the MP martial artist easily crushes the doddering old master who bought 5 variations on "HA plus levels" just for completeness' sake.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

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

Treat all skills the same.

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

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

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

Treat all skills the same.

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

cheers, Mark

Oohhh... I like that!

[steamteck]

On the other hand, I think they work just fine. It doesn't take long to add up a few d6 and subtract a number.



And gives you a nice defined level of effect.

[IndianaJoe3]

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