Consolidating Skill and Combat

[Chris Goodwin]

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

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

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

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


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


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

Skill Rolls and Familiarity:

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

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

For Skill usage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Skill:

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

Combat Skill Types:

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

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

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

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

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

(Crossposted to 6e Skills and Combat Issues threads)

[Sean Waters]

I do like the idea of a single consistent mechanic :)

The main potential problem is that it makes buying in anything buy a multiple of 5 pretty pointless (well, you'd get 13/18 breakpoints everyone would shoot for, with STR being the exception because you get a difference in the damage. Some characteristics are used as threshold values (CON, PRE, EGO and to an extent STR) so every point will always be useful, but most of the others are only used to calculate skill bonuses.

What if we alos introduced the idea that those spare points, if you buy a dex of 12 might help? This is not an original idea - I've seen it posted before, but I can not recall by whom.

Basically you don't round your CHA rolls: you have to buy your characteristic up to 15 before you get an automatic +1 BUT if it is not divisible exactly by 5, roll an additonal die. If that number comes up equal to or less than the 'spare points' you have on the characteristic, you get +1 for that roll.

SO, taking 12 DEX as an example you get +2 for the 10 points and roll an additional 1d6 with your 3d6. If that additional die comes up 1 or 2 (you have 2 points 'spare' with a value of 12) then you get an additional +1 for that roll (a total bonus of +3).

ALSO, having looked at the above post, and picking up on hints from elsewhere that figured characteristics are going we NEED to keep COM and probably create PER as a characteristic too.

Why? Look at the stat block. If it were not for Body, it would be DnD **shudder**

[Chris Goodwin]

I do like the idea of a single consistent mechanic :)

The main potential problem is that it makes buying in anything buy a multiple of 5 pretty pointless (well, you'd get 13/18 breakpoints everyone would shoot for, with STR being the exception because you get a difference in the damage. Some characteristics are used as threshold values (CON, PRE, EGO and to an extent STR) so every point will always be useful, but most of the others are only used to calculate skill bonuses.

Yeah, that's true, but I'm not so sure it's a terrible problem. As you say, some of the characteristics are threshold values (and add BODY to the list, and potentially DEX for initiative -- all of the people who buy 14 DEX are going to go before those guys who hit the breakpoint at 13).

Or, look at it this way. Two guys fighting, both SPD 3. One guy is DEX 13, the other 14. For 3 points, he goes first, every time. (Or 2, if he bought it as Lightning Reflexes.)

What if we alos introduced the idea that those spare points, if you buy a dex of 12 might help? This is not an original idea - I've seen it posted before, but I can not recall by whom.

Basically you don't round your CHA rolls: you have to buy your characteristic up to 15 before you get an automatic +1 BUT if it is not divisible exactly by 5, roll an additonal die. If that number comes up equal to or less than the 'spare points' you have on the characteristic, you get +1 for that roll.

SO, taking 12 DEX as an example you get +2 for the 10 points and roll an additional 1d6 with your 3d6. If that additional die comes up 1 or 2 (you have 2 points 'spare' with a value of 12) then you get an additional +1 for that roll (a total bonus of +3).

Yeah, I've seen that one too. I'm not sure I want to be adding an extra die and having to track it against a separate value.

ALSO, having looked at the above post, and picking up on hints from elsewhere that figured characteristics are going we NEED to keep COM and probably create PER as a characteristic too.

Why? Look at the stat block. If it were not for Body, it would be DnD **shudder**

:lol: If you move Body to the side and call it hit points.....

D&D used to have an optional Comeliness characteristic, almost certainly after HERO came out.

Oh, and I only left Figured out because I didn't want to come up with a whole stat block. The Characteristics themselves are almost certainly staying.

[Sean Waters]

You are right. In fact the only characteristics that DOESN'T have an alternative/resistance use, and would be a pointless buy in less than 5 point units is INT.

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills, we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....

[Doc Democracy]

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills, we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....

Careful Sean, you're walking a path I have trodden and it leads to thinking that the game would be lots easier to organise if there were no primary characteristics. :)

Doc

[prestidigitator]

I've done something similar before. My approach was to change the Characteristic "Roll" to the bonus of CHAR/5 without changing the basic cost or formulae. I also rated each Skill by the amount ADDED to the base roll: -5 (or so) for completely unskilled (if a roll is allowed at all), -3 for Familiarity, and +0 for the skill at base value. Then when it came to rolling skills the total bonus became the skill value plus either a Characteristic bonus (possibly the Characteristic appropriate to the action at hand if you use mix-and-match; see below), or +2 otherwise (equivalent to the usual purchase of a general skill at 11-).

For your usual Hero style dice rolling, you'd take 9+(total bonus) as the roll-under value. For my games I instead used a roll-high method that simply added the total bonus to the die roll and compared to a target difficulty for the task (default 12+). For attacks you'd add your CV to the die roll and compare to the target's 10+CV.

The appeal of this to me is that it looks familiar to both D&D and World of Darkness players (the bonus for a Characteristic or Skill is somewhat comparable to the "dots" you'd have in a WoD game) without changing the underlying mechanics at all. BUT it allows you to mix and match different Characteristics with different Skills as appropriate to the action if you like that aspect of games like the WoD family (that's part of the WoD mechanics I really LIKE, whereas the success-per-die thing I can do without).

[Markdoc]

Yeah, I've seen that one too. I'm not sure I want to be adding an extra die and having to track it against a separate value.

Agreed. A simpler approach is simply to say that in case of ties, higher stat wins. That only happens in skill vs skill contests, but for many skills, that's where the crunch is.

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

I've done something similar before. My approach was to change the Characteristic "Roll" to the bonus of CHAR/5 without changing the basic cost or formulae. I also rated each Skill by the amount ADDED to the base roll: -5 (or so) for completely unskilled (if a roll is allowed at all), -3 for Familiarity, and +0 for the skill at base value. Then when it came to rolling skills the total bonus became the skill value plus either a Characteristic bonus (possibly the Characteristic appropriate to the action at hand if you use mix-and-match; see below), or +2 otherwise (equivalent to the usual purchase of a general skill at 11-).

For your usual Hero style dice rolling, you'd take 9+(total bonus) as the roll-under value. For my games I instead used a roll-high method that simply added the total bonus to the die roll and compared to a target difficulty for the task (default 12+). For attacks you'd add your CV to the die roll and compare to the target's 10+CV.

The appeal of this to me is that it looks familiar to both D&D and World of Darkness players (the bonus for a Characteristic or Skill is somewhat comparable to the "dots" you'd have in a WoD game) without changing the underlying mechanics at all. BUT it allows you to mix and match different Characteristics with different Skills as appropriate to the action if you like that aspect of games like the WoD family (that's part of the WoD mechanics I really LIKE, whereas the success-per-die thing I can do without).

I like that about WoD too - a highly trained locksmith will know how to pick a lock and quite a bit about locks and it si much more straightforward to just buy the lockpick skill, and use it with DEX when you are actually picking a lock and with INT when you want to recall where you've seent hat particular brand of lock previously...

My personal preference for rolling is to base everything on CHA/5 and do the same thing using the combat mechanics. A normal has an Offensive Skill Value (OSV) of 2 (CHA/5). This is opposed by a DSV (Defensive Skill Value) - tasks that do not involve opponents as such have assigned values, so the DSV of a task that is of average difficulty to someone with skill to do it would be the same as the normal's OCV: 2. More difficult tasks increase the DSV: 4 for a difficult taks, 6 for a monumental task and 8, perhaps, for a superhuman task. A superhuman with a characteristic value of 40 would therefore be able to perform superhuman tasks routinely.

If you only have familiarity that is a -3 penalty and if you are completely unfamiliar that is a further -3 penalty. Favourable conditions can add to your OSV and DSV, and you can use exactly the same system for combat, skills and indeed any task resolution.

That way we get rid of the 9+CHAR/5 completely whilst perfectly preserving the odds of success.

[Chris Goodwin]

You are right. In fact the only characteristics that DOESN'T have an alternative/resistance use, and would be a pointless buy in less than 5 point units is INT.

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills, we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....

The difference is, the 5 point Skill Level adds to INT-based Skills, one at a time, while 5 points of INT adds to all INT-based actions, all the time.

[Paragon]

The difference is, the 5 point Skill Level adds to INT-based Skills, one at a time, while 5 points of INT adds to all INT-based actions, all the time.


Other than use of supporting skills, when does that matter? I don't recall every seeing someone actually called on to use multiple Intellect skills that had to be used at exactly the same time...

[The Main Man]

I agree that a PC usually does not simultaneously perform more than one skill.

They usually perform one and then another when attempting Complementary Rolls which allows for reallocation of Skill Levels in between rolls if I am not mistaken.


6e could be a winner if it starts to look like other systems while still staying true to itself.

Am I correct in saying that the following are the core concepts of HERO that, if removed, would irrevocably change it into something else?

1. Toolkit
2. SPD Chart
3. D6-Based

[Chris Goodwin]

Other than use of supporting skills, when does that matter? I don't recall every seeing someone actually called on to use multiple Intellect skills that had to be used at exactly the same time...

Maybe. Just pointing it out. As The Main Man notes, how does this interact with Complementary Skills? But yeah, it is very much an edge case.

[Paragon]

Maybe. Just pointing it out. As The Main Man notes, how does this interact with Complementary Skills? But yeah, it is very much an edge case.

Complimentary skills are the exception I referred to (I tend to think of them as supporting skills for some reason); but often ones supporting Intellect skills are Knowledges anyway, which don't default to Intellect in the first place.

[The Main Man]

Just had a random thought: "Combat" being used as a Complementary Skill.

[Sean Waters]

Just had a random thought: "Combat" being used as a Complementary Skill.

Yeah. To seduction.

Domach 'a chIy ghoS 'epagh! (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/7893/phrase.htm)

[The Main Man]

Another thought is that if CHAR generate a "MOD" and you roll high, this would make skill rolls based on alternate CHAR easier to calculate because you do not need to return to the drawing board; you just add the appropriate CHAR MOD to the Skill bonus that the GM deems appropriate.

[Chris Goodwin]

I see where I've been having some trouble getting my head around stuff. I tried to consolidate and flip at the same time. Let me run some numbers on consolidating by itself before I flip.

[The Main Man]

HERO will be more flexible than ever if CHAR MOD's become interchangeable bonuses for skills.

[Paragon]

If there's anything I ever curse myself about, its that when I did the house rules for Superhero 2044 that Champions in part is based on, that I based the skill rules on attribute/5 instead of the smaller scale. If I had based it on attribute/3 I suspect you wouldn't even be having to think about this, Chris.

[Chris Goodwin]

If there's anything I ever curse myself about, its that when I did the house rules for Superhero 2044 that Champions in part is based on, that I based the skill rules on attribute/5 instead of the smaller scale. If I had based it on attribute/3 I suspect you wouldn't even be having to think about this, Chris.

True.

The Skills right now are 9 + CHA/5 for the full Skill or 8- for Familiarity.

Or 9 + CHA/5 vs. 9 + CHA/5 if opposed.

Combat is 11 + CHA/3 - CHA/3 with Familiarity or 11 + (CHA/3 - 3) - CHA/3 without.

We can consolidate them to:

11 + MOD - MOD

Whether MOD is CHA/5 or CHA/3 can be left an open question. I favor CHA/5 because that value is used in more places elsewhere in the system; if Figured Characteristics remain figured the CHA/5 number is even more useful (in fact the formulas that aren't based on it could be tweaked to be) but I think this is unlikely.

Here's a place where terminology is tripping us up: Familiarity. Familiarity with a Skill means you effectively have a penalty off of your base value, while Familiarity with a weapon means you don't have the penalty. We can turn the 8- Familiarity and the -3 unskilled weapon penalty into, say, a straight -2 penalty (which is what the -3 translates to when switching from CHA/3 to CHA/5).

More later.

[Paragon]

The reason I wish I'd done it as Char/3 is that it would have increased the number of points of meaningful distinction for some characteristics that get a bit of short shrift here like Int. Admittedly, you'd lose the place where Char/5 cuts in, but most of those are on characteristics that have some interim value anyway (Dex for initiative, Strength for lift, damage and Figured Characteristic contribution, Ego for resistance value).

[Sean Waters]

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD, combat, skills, even characteristic rolls and opposed strength checks (Although I can see some logic in maintaining the Body Count method for opposed strength checks, if we did that we probably ought to use the same methody for all characteristic checks.)

We could use CHA/3 or CHA/5, but we should use the same throughout IMO. I think that CHA/5 is possibly the best bet, although I could be persuaded to CHA/3.

[Chris Goodwin]

The reason I wish I'd done it as Char/3 is that it would have increased the number of points of meaningful distinction for some characteristics that get a bit of short shrift here like Int. Admittedly, you'd lose the place where Char/5 cuts in, but most of those are on characteristics that have some interim value anyway (Dex for initiative, Strength for lift, damage and Figured Characteristic contribution, Ego for resistance value).

Oh, sure. If you'd done it as CHA/3 originally we might be looking at 1d6 per 3 STR, for instance, and we'd be talking about the "default scale" being 1d6 per 3 Active Points.

Just out of curiosity; were you (or the OHGs) playing The Fantasy Trip around that time as well?

[Paragon]

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD, combat, skills, even characteristic rolls and opposed strength checks (Although I can see some logic in maintaining the Body Count method for opposed strength checks, if we did that we probably ought to use the same methody for all characteristic checks.)

We could use CHA/3 or CHA/5, but we should use the same throughout IMO. I think that CHA/5 is possibly the best bet, although I could be persuaded to CHA/3.

I think there's some reasons to keep two types of resolution 3d6+mod resolution for things that are somewhat linear (only somewhat because of the 3d6, but I think you understand what I mean) and dice-count-body for things where you want the result to get flatter and flatter as the value increases. I think they serve different kinds of purposes better.

[Sean Waters]

I think there's some reasons to keep two types of resolution 3d6+mod resolution for things that are somewhat linear (only somewhat because of the 3d6, but I think you understand what I mean) and dice-count-body for things where you want the result to get flatter and flatter as the value increases. I think they serve different kinds of purposes better.

I can see that logic. I'm wondering though how we decide what needs to be flat? STR v STR I can sort of see: if +5 STR is 2x lift, then a little more STR should be a lot more advantage BUT the chances of 5 v 10 STR have very different with a count the Body thing than the chances for 45 v 50 STR, and, with the argument for Body counting therre should be no real difference there.

What about DEX v DEX: if we assume that characteristics are built to similar base principles then you should count Body on all characteristic rolls.

Logically then when you are pitting one characteristic against another you should roll Body. That would include, for example, combat, stealth against someone's perception and most social interaction rolls.

Rather than drawing what is going to be a somewhat arbitrary line between somr rolls and others I'd prefer a single consistent mechanic. Just my preference though. In fact, whilst I personally like the idea a great deal, if I were doing 6th edition the concept of Body counting would almost completely disappear from the system, probably only being used for KB rolls. Now that's quite a bit step...

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD, combat, skills, even characteristic rolls and opposed strength checks (Although I can see some logic in maintaining the Body Count method for opposed strength checks, if we did that we probably ought to use the same methody for all characteristic checks.)

The question then becomes; in instances where the GM would normally say, "Okay, make a DEX roll..." what do you use for the opposing MOD? It's a good bet that in most circumstances the GM will have something in mind, but not always. Do you just assume a MOD of 2 if not otherwise specified?

[Paragon]

Oh, sure. If you'd done it as CHA/3 originally we might be looking at 1d6 per 3 STR, for instance, and we'd be talking about the "default scale" being 1d6 per 3 Active Points.

Just out of curiosity; were you (or the OHGs) playing The Fantasy Trip around that time as well?

If you look at the original publication date of TFT, it only barely predates Champions; by the time the original authors got ahold of my houserules, it wasn't out yet, so it had no influence on me. Now whether George and/or Steve had played TFT by the time they were approaching getting Champions together, I couldn't say, but I kind of doubt it.

There's really no need; other than converting a lot of flat values to dice, most of Hero's core traits are pretty clearly derivable from S44 and the houserules; most of the innovations could easily have been in the actual development rather than with any real second inspiration source. Certainly the 3d6 roll (which was present for melee and mental combat in S44) and the general scale and point build approach were already present in S44, and my houserules expanded on that, so any similarities to TFT are pretty much parallel development.

[Paragon]

I can see that logic. I'm wondering though how we decide what needs to be flat? STR v STR I can sort of see: if +5 STR is 2x lift, then a little more STR should be a lot more advantage BUT the chances of 5 v 10 STR have very different with a count the Body thing than the chances for 45 v 50 STR, and, with the argument for Body counting therre should be no real difference there.



I think that's the issue; you need to assess the cases where a small difference in attribute should actually have a big difference in likelyhood of success against another force, you just really don't want to be using 3d6+mod, unless you're going to use variable mods (and if you don't watch it when doing that, you can have a situation where you make the situation just impossible).

[Sean Waters]

The question then becomes; in instances where the GM would normally say, "Okay, make a DEX roll..." what do you use for the opposing MOD? It's a good bet that in most circumstances the GM will have something in mind, but not always. Do you just assume a MOD of 2 if not otherwise specified?

Exactly (assuming we runwith CHA/5; if we go with CHA/3 then we use a 'basic' MOD of 3)!

A MOD of 2 is precicely the same odds as rolling 9+CHAR/5. For a 10 CHAR normal that is 9+2= 11 or less. With MOD v MOD that is 11+2-2=11 or less.

I feel that having a MOD to simulate the difficulty of a task is more likely to encourage people to think about it a bit more: rather than 'Make a DEX roll with a penalty of 4 because it is difficult, you make a DEX roll against a MOD of 6. The chances of success are the same but the semantics are moer likely to encourage (IMO) using different task 'difficulty'.

[The Main Man]

It's just like DC's* in D20.




*Difficulty Class ;)

[Chris Goodwin]

Exactly (assuming we runwith CHA/5; if we go with CHA/3 then we use a 'basic' MOD of 3)!

A MOD of 2 is precicely the same odds as rolling 9+CHAR/5. For a 10 CHAR normal that is 9+2= 11 or less. With MOD v MOD that is 11+2-2=11 or less.

Precisely. Also, with MOD v MOD, it gives the same odds as combat currently does (11+2-2 = 11 or less, 11+3-3 = 11 or less) (obviously this is different with characteristics that aren't 10).

(11 + your MOD - opponent's MOD) or less on 3d6 becomes (11 - opponent's MOD) on (3d6 - your mod).

Flipping this over becomes (10 + opponent's MOD) or more on (3d6 + your mod).

Familiarity with a Skill is 8- under the current system. This becomes 13+ when flipped (plus you don't get your MOD). The penalty for unfamiliarity with a weapon is -3, which becomes +3 to MOD. This gives us three possibilities:

--------------------------------------------------
3d6+MOD vs. 10+MOD (normal)

3d6+MOD vs 13+MOD (Familiarity w/Skill). Normally this would be 3d6 (no mod) vs. 13+ (flipped from 3d6 vs. 8-), but adding MOD on both sides keeps it consistent.

3d6+MOD vs. 13+MOD (Unfamiliar w/Weapon) (11-3+OCV-DCV becomes 8+OCV-DCV flips to 13+MOD vs. 3d6+MOD)
--------------------------------------------------

So, it looks like in both cases, there's a -3 penalty (for being Unfamiliar with the weapon or being Familiar with a Skill).

I feel that having a MOD to simulate the difficulty of a task is more likely to encourage people to think about it a bit more: rather than 'Make a DEX roll with a penalty of 4 because it is difficult, you make a DEX roll against a MOD of 6. The chances of success are the same but the semantics are moer likely to encourage (IMO) using different task 'difficulty'.

True. The only thing is, we need to make sure to set a default MOD of 2.

[The Main Man]

I got to thinking that maybe "Combat" should be split into Ranged Combat and Hand to Hand Combat to differentiate between Martial Artists and Gun Bunnies.

[Vondy]

NOTE: This is a heroic level oriented approach. It can work for supers, but you would have to tweak the application to make it sing. I din't have supers in mind when I started using this - I'm a heroic kind of guy :D

I've removed OCV-DCV and replaced it with an opposed 3d6 MoS based roll. You can go one of two routes: the opposed roll is binary: hit/miss [this creates a few problems you have to hurdle to make it work], or it affects the amount of damage done.

This can be done a couple of ways: you can use standard effect and scale the damage based on MoS, or you can scale the DCs done based on MoS [heroic only]. You can also use a combination of methods. For instance, a boxer may do 4d6-1 with his punch. But as his MoS increases he might get up to +4DCs for a maximum blow of 8d6-1.

Its assumed a character is always evading at their base 9+ (DX/5) roll. They can use an action to use a weapon or relevant hand to hand skill to block. That's one thing that makes it unpopular with people who like the current hero martial arts system.

However, I've found that having the core martial art skill be used for striking and blocking, and then having a few specialist skills for things like "pressure points," "death blow," "choke hold," and the like works very well. And, since I scale the damage based on MoS I don't have to deal with purchasing Damage Classes.

I also don't have to deal with combat skill levels on the whole because characters pay to increase their skills to get better to hit and damage rolls. Instead, skill levels are generally for non-combat skills. The exception is penalty skill levels and skill levels constructed as talents, which tend to only occur in games with granular skill definitions (see below).

The only trick is defining how broad you want your weapon skills to be. This can be a double edged sword. On the one hand, its allows easy tweaking for genre and play style - you just provide a list that reflects what you want. On the other hand, it can lead to some conflict. For instance, does the character purchase small arms or pistols?

This can be handled in one of several ways: scale the cost schema of the skill based on breadth, trust players to build to concept and flow loose [which requires trust and a story focused style], or disallow skill groups [like small arms] and create a list of narrowly defined combat skills [like pistols, shoulder-arms, grenades], but allow skill levels to reduce the cost of combat skill intensive characters.

Another option might be to only allow combat skills at their base characteristic level and require people to purchase skill levels to increase the roll. In so doing, you scale the cost of increasing the roll to the breadth of the skill. For instance, pistols would require two point levels, small arms would require three point levels, ranged combat would require 5 point levels, and the like.

In general, I use a hybrid approach. I have a skill maxima in play for my heroic games (13-). The only way to exceed that maxima is to have a natural base roll that is higher than the maxima (14-, 15-) or to purchase skill levels that are scaled to the breadth of the skill. Thus, you either pay for the high characteristic, or have to buy levels, which for broader skills is more expensive than increasing individual skills [with the exception that increasing lots of individual skills will eventually be more expensive - you have to decide on a strategy that fits where you want the character to go. It also favors games where characters may be competent in many things, but have shtick for the things they are really good at.

Its not really that hard to consolidate the two at the heroic level, but it does cause the game to flow differently. Whether that is good or bad is subjective. Personally, I love it. The main advantage is that it avoids my CV peeve - that its puts all the emphasis on characteristic rather than skill. That's appropriate for some genres, but for heroic games not so much. As a result, even though you still get a base boost with a higher characteristic, you still end up focusing on skills to really become dominant - and can decide how broad you want that dominance to be (as opposed to having it be automatic).

This can work for superheroic games, too. You just have to think a little before you apply it. However, I think the current system works fine for supers - that is, after all, what it was designed for.

[The Main Man]

I figure that Weapon Familiarities would be sub-skills under the Combat skill in much the same way that skills like Systems Operation or Survival have.

I also got to thinking that the Combat skill could function in a way that is similar to some of the feats from D20 like Combat Expertise or Power Attack where the skill can take penalties for another end.

For example, I could take -2 to my Combat Skill to gain an effective +2 when I am attacked or vice versa.

[Vondy]

I figure that Weapon Familiarities would be sub-skills under the Combat skill in much the same way that skills like Systems Operation or Survival have.

I used this method as a test when I was fiddling with a skill based combat system.

It worked really well in terms of scaling cost, but had the drawback of giving you a monolithic to hit roll. You were basically equally good with every sub-skill you took, which is appropriate for some genres or character concepts and not others. I also tried this with three combat categories: ranged, melee, and unarmed. It worked very well, but the lack of ability to create varied skill rolls for varied abilities with different attacks stuck in my craw.

I also got to thinking that the Combat skill could function in a way that is similar to some of the feats from D20 like Combat Expertise or Power Attack where the skill can take penalties for another end.

For example, I could take -2 to my Combat Skill to gain an effective +2 when I am attacked or vice versa.

This is a good option. I like it. :thumbup:

[The Main Man]

In addition, I mentioned it elsewhere but I think that the Martial Arts Maneuver creation rules can easily be folded into the Combat skill.

Like if I want a "Target Falls" element then I take a -1 to my Combat skill.

This is partially inspired by the maneuver creation rules from the WWE Know Your Role! RPG.


Taking all of this further, Skill Maneuvers can be more easily developed when they are looked at in the same light as Combat.

[The Main Man]

I used this method as a test when I was fiddling with a skill based combat system.

It worked really well in terms of scaling cost, but had the drawback of giving you a monolithic to hit roll. You were basically equally good with every sub-skill you took, which is appropriate for some genres or character concepts and not others. I also tried this with three combat categories: ranged, melee, and unarmed. It worked very well, but the lack of ability to create varied skill rolls for varied abilities with different attacks stuck in my craw.


If I read that correctly I think that individual Skill Levels for individual weapons may suffice.

Speaking of Skill Levels, would there be a need for the 10 CP "Overall" level anymore?

[Vondy]

If I read that correctly I think that individual Skill Levels for individual weapons may suffice.

It does, except that raising the skill roll itself proves significantly more point-efficient, and short of me designing and micromanaging the growth of every character in the game it creates a huge potential for abuse.

Speaking of Skill Levels, would there be a need for the 10 CP "Overall" level anymore?

Not really.

[The Main Man]

I see your point now.

Also, if the "Overall" Level gave way to "All Skills" Skill levels will start to cheapen a little bit on the larger scale.

[The Main Man]

This just occured to me: A player could sell back Combat for a point as an Everyman skill.