INT & PRE Skill Levels

[Dust Raven]

It's amazing where one's mind can wonder sometimes...

Here's something I've noticed.

It costs 5 points to buy a +1 with all Intellect Skills.

or...

It cost 5 points to buy 5 INT, getting a +1 with all Intellect Skills, +1 to the PER Roll, and a bonus on things like Universal Translator. You even make it harder for people to Drain your INT.

The same goes for PRE and Interaction skills.

This has never come up with me before, because skills are usually bought up individually in the games I run.

So, is this something you would just kinda look at and go "well, um......" or has anyone addressed this issue in their game?

[Pattern Ghost]

I think those five pointers find more use in NCM games.

Seems to just be a matter of scale. You get +1 with one skill for 2 pts, a group of skills for 3, and then you're into losing on the deal at 5. You could say that PRE and INT skills are a "tight group" though, and ignore the 3 skills part. If a MA gets to take 3 pt levels for more than 3 MA moves and a MP user gets to take 3 pt levels for more than 3 slots in a MP, then I see no reason not to extend the courtesy to larger groups of PRE or INT skills. Maybe not all skills on the list, but if the character is focussed, say around being a con-man (PRE skills in Conversation, Bribery, Persuasion, High Society, Streetwise, etc.) or Technician (INT skills in Inventor, SS skils, Electronics, Mechanics, Systems Operations, etc.), then extending the limit to a half dozen or so for a "tight group" seems fine. I'd say using the 3 pt. tight group option is more viable for some games than bothering with five pt. levels.

edit: IOW, the "3 skills" part can be ignored, unless the selection of skills boosted is totally unrelated. (Say, Stealth, Mechanics, Breakfall and Seduction. Sure, they may be the defining skills of a suave ninja mechanic concept, but they're pretty random.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
I think those five pointers find more use in NCM games.

Seems to just be a matter of scale. You get +1 with one skill for 2 pts, a group of skills for 3, and then you're into losing on the deal at 5. You could say that PRE and INT skills are a "tight group" though, and ignore the 3 skills part. If a MA gets to take 3 pt levels for more than 3 MA moves and a MP user gets to take 3 pt levels for more than 3 slots in a MP, then I see no reason not to extend the courtesy to larger groups of PRE or INT skills. Maybe not all skills on the list, but if the character is focussed, say around being a con-man (PRE skills in Conversation, Bribery, Persuasion, High Society, Streetwise, etc.) or Technician (INT skills in Inventor, SS skils, Electronics, Mechanics, Systems Operations, etc.), then extending the limit to a half dozen or so for a "tight group" seems fine. I'd say using the 3 pt. tight group option is more viable for some games than bothering with five pt. levels.

NCM definitely makes all the difference. It's worth buying your PRE (or INT) up to 23 - the 6 extra points get more benefits than a 5 point skill level (1 point to get PER roll bonuses is a pretty goopd deal, even if you never use 2 INT skills at the same time) - after which 5 pointers are efficient.

Without NCM, I agree with allowing PRE based or INT based skills to be considered a single tight group, for exactly the reasons you've pointed out. Even then, it's tempting to boost the base stat for 5 points rather than take the 3 point levels, but at least it's not a no-brainer decision.

The underlying implication that the stat is more effective than training is a bit annoying, but then we in real life don't have the option of just getting smarter instead of taking the training.

[Talon]

My solution is to raise the cost of INT and PRE to 1.5...but I haven't playtested it yet.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
My solution is to raise the cost of INT and PRE to 1.5...but I haven't playtested it yet.

I prefer lowering the cost of the levels. If INT and PRE are 1.5 each, we should probably also raise the costs of several other stats to compensate. Then we'll be changing some power costs because they link to stats (eg. if STR costs 2 points, telekinesis costs double, and all the Adjustment powers increase iof used on stats).

Now that everything costs more, we'll need 350 base points + 150 points in disadvantages. And all we'll ultimately be doing is building the same characters we were building before, with points inflated.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I prefer lowering the cost of the levels. If INT and PRE are 1.5 each, we should probably also raise the costs of several other stats to compensate. Then we'll be changing some power costs because they link to stats (eg. if STR costs 2 points, telekinesis costs double, and all the Adjustment powers increase iof used on stats).

Now that everything costs more, we'll need 350 base points + 150 points in disadvantages. And all we'll ultimately be doing is building the same characters we were building before, with points inflated.

That's why we should drop point costs entirely in favor of bribing the GM with gifts of food.
;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
That's why we should drop point costs entirely in favor of bribing the GM with gifts of food.
;)

As a GM, I can see some merits in this system :o

[Talon]

My solution also includes other stat changes, which I won't list so the thread isn't hijacked. But, my reasoning is:

5 INT = +1 to INT Skills (5 points) and +1 to PER (3 points), so 7.5 points for 5 INT is not unreasonable.

5 PRE = +1 to PRE Skills (5 points) and +1d6 PRE attacks (not costed, but 3 points seems reasonable), so again 7.5 is not totally out of line.

I don't think these require re-costing other stats, it's just that this kind of thinking encourages it. :)

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
My solution also includes other stat changes, which I won't list so the thread isn't hijacked. But, my reasoning is:

5 INT = +1 to INT Skills (5 points) and +1 to PER (3 points), so 7.5 points for 5 INT is not unreasonable.

5 PRE = +1 to PRE Skills (5 points) and +1d6 PRE attacks (not costed, but 3 points seems reasonable), so again 7.5 is not totally out of line.

I don't think these require re-costing other stats, it's just that this kind of thinking encourages it. :)

I do prefer HERO over GURPS, Tri-Stat, Aberrant, etc. That said, I wouldn't mind a 2 points per point in all stats flat rate, with the stats that simply aren't worth that much (COM) either dropped entirely or beefed up until they're worthwhile (my choice when GMing).

That said, recosting never ends once it gets started. Much easier to just say "Look, it costs what it costs" and house rule your way around anything that doesn't make sense. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
My solution also includes other stat changes, which I won't list so the thread isn't hijacked. But, my reasoning is:

5 INT = +1 to INT Skills (5 points) and +1 to PER (3 points), so 7.5 points for 5 INT is not unreasonable.

5 PRE = +1 to PRE Skills (5 points) and +1d6 PRE attacks (not costed, but 3 points seems reasonable), so again 7.5 is not totally out of line.

just to add fuel to the fire...

But PRE also gives bonus PRE defense, so there's another 3 points (2.5 points). Should it be 2 points each (same cost as CON and BOD (which add figured CHAR) and Ego (which impacts ECV, defensive PRE, and ego rolls)?

[Farkling]

In NCM games, skill levels of that nature are very standard...as the players find them a much better deal for increasing their skill rolls...in a SuperHero Game I picture 5 pt SKILLS levels as more for broad categories OTHER than "STAT base" skill...ie. 5 pt levels with Con Artistry, Detective Work, Crime Scene Analysis, Language, Research, Organization, Red Tape, JetSetter, Playboy, Energy Forms, Nuclear Power, Rivers, ... then if the action taken by the character is appropriate, the level applies REGARDLESS of the skill...

In the NCM/Heroic game I GM occasionally ::
One of my PC's has purchased Overall levels for "luck and timing"; it was a better cost deal than bundles of PRE and INT levels..AND they can apply to his combat rolls...he liked that concept better than increasing his skill rolls individually or the seperate skill groupings.

Yes, he has THE most skills of the characters, and the LEAST combat ability. :)

I believe the most amusing thing he had to say after the first game was "There's a Luck Power? I never looked in the powers section...except that Armor writeup you gave me" (an Artful Dodger variant)

[Dust Raven]

I am not, under any circumstances changing the base cost for Characteristics. I'm not saying their fine the way they are, it's just that it's too much work to rewrite the rules to that extent.

I like the idea of classifying Characteristic based Skills as a "tight group." Rarely have I seen a character that buys ALL of the skills listed for a Characteristic, but rather just buys the ones that best fit his concept. It would be easy to define those skills as a tight group.

I also like Farkling's idea of extending the definition of "broad category" to include any skill that would apply to the situation. Reminds me of Ranma 1/2, who would likely have 8-10 levels with "martial arts," Farkling's idea would make those levels cost 5 points each, but now they can apply ice skating, rhythmic gymnastics and the dozens of other things Ranma could do if it was done in a martial arts way.

[BNakagawa]

At the risk of adding complication to a system that is already characterized as mechanics-heavy, I have an observation to add:

There is an assymetry to the contributions of talent (stats) and training (skill levels) to the function of a skill in certain situations.

example: Both Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were fantastic basketball players who led their teams to many championship games, often against eachother. Magic Johnson, I would characterize as having more raw physical talent(stats), and Larry Bird I would characterize as having more training (skill levels)

Years after they ended their playing careers, both ended up as head coaches of NBA teams. Larry had a much higher win % as a coach than Magic. It is my contention that players who are more skill levels than stats make better coaches because their success is a product of something that can be explained and passed along to their players better than raw physical gifts.

(as a side note, Michael Jordan also had a pretty lousy win % as a head coach. I can't think of a player more blessed with physical gifts than MJ)

So, I might consider working out a system where in certain situations, the stat contribution to a skill roll might be magnified and at others, the skill portion might be magnified.

Coaching would seem to be a situation in which your skill at basketball might be a good complimentary skill, but in which the dex contribution should be downplayed, or alternately, the skill portion magnified. In any case, the primary skill ought to be coaching, as there are examples of extremely good coaches who never played very much. (although these are pretty rare)

Back to the issue at hand: if you find that there is no mathematical reason to buy a skill level as opposed to just increasing your stat (especially in a non NCM game) then invent one. If skill levels got magnified at certain times, then perhaps more people might buy them.

$0.02

[Farkling]

Buy coaching is INT based....same as teaching...

(though I have seen them as EGO - based, "May I have the Strength to stop me from killing these morons!")

[TheEmerged]

As others have suggested, the difference is in NCM-default campaigns (where the PC's have Normal Characteristic Maxima by default). Play enough of these (and frankly, I tend to do more NCM-defaults than superheroic) and you'll see the system differently.

[Col. Orange]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
It costs 5 points to buy a +1 with all Intellect Skills.
or...
It cost 5 points to buy 5 INT, getting a +1 with all Intellect Skills, +1 to the PER Roll, and a bonus on things like Universal Translator.

or...
2D6 HA; Hand to Hand Attack [-1/2] = 10a/7r
vs.
10 STR; No Figured Stats [-1/2] = 10a/7r

Both add 2DC, but STR adds to STR rolls, damage/distance of thrown objects, damage of HKAs, breaking out of Grabs...

[Lord Liaden]

I suspect that part of the rationale for the Skill Levels being costed this way is to make them function uniformly across the board, rather than creating exceptions based on relative costs of Characteristics, which would make for more complexity and confusion. After all, they're the same rate for Agility Skills which are based on a far more expensive Characteristic, or for categories of Background Skills which may not use a Characteristic at all and can be bought at a cheaper initial level. While I wouldn't try to dissuade a GM who wants to allow a "tight group" of Skills that 3-point levels apply to, to my mind the benefits of the 5-pointer in other cases balance out any drawbacks to Intellect and Interaction Skills in the context of the game as a whole, such that I would not want to make exceptions myself.

BTW for what it's worth, according to the FAQ a 5-point Skill Level with INT-based rolls would apply to Perception Rolls as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
I suspect that part of the rationale for the Skill Levels being costed this way is to make them function uniformly across the board, rather than creating exceptions based on relative costs of Characteristics, which would make for more complexity and confusion. After all, they're the same rate for Agility Skills which are based on a far more expensive Characteristic, or for categories of Background Skills which may not use a Characteristic at all and can be bought at a cheaper initial level. While I wouldn't try to dissuade a GM who wants to allow a "tight group" of Skills that 3-point levels apply to, to my mind the benefits of the 5-pointer in other cases balance out any drawbacks to Intellect and Interaction Skills in the context of the game as a whole, such that I would not want to make exceptions myself.

Yes and no. I get a lot more other benefits for my DEX than for my INT or PRE, so DEX "only for skill rolls" would logically carry a bigger limit than INT or PRE "only for skill rolls". Especially when we include PER in "skill rolls" for INT.

[prestidigitator]

How about this? There are plenty of attacks which drain your stats, but how often do characters have attacks which drain (or apply negative) skill levels? Go ahead: reduce my Int to 2; you're going to have to do even better, because I'll still have a 13- on my Concealment (I've trained in it so much it is almost instinctive...).

On the note of Characteristic costs, there are plenty of Int- and Pre-based skills, but how many are based on Ego or Con? Not that I will argue for actually changing their costs, mind you. It is just a thought.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
How about this? There are plenty of attacks which drain your stats, but how often do characters have attacks which drain (or apply negative) skill levels? Go ahead: reduce my Int to 2; you're going to have to do even better, because I'll still have a 13- on my Concealment (I've trained in it so much it is almost instinctive...). Hero #2 says 'Well, I took all the points that you spent on INT skill levels and bought 20 points of power defence, instead. I'm still immune to the drain.'

HERO system ain't perfect, and it doesn't have perfect balance, despite what some people try to claim. Some builds are, simply, more effective than others. I think some of these can be addressed. After all, in GURPS, you pay for more for things that would be harder for the character to get. In HERO, you pay more for things that would be more useful in an actual game. If something's less useful in a session, IMO, you pay less for it.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Lupus
Hero #2 says 'Well, I took all the points that you spent on INT skill levels and bought 20 points of power defence, instead. I'm still immune to the drain.'

Ah! But how useful is that Power Defense when you aren't being drained? Can you build a starship with it? ;)

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Ah! But how useful is that Power Defense when you aren't being drained? Can you build a starship with it? ;)

This is something that hadn't occured to me. I could buy 20 INT & a bunch of Power Defense (I could even limit the Power Defense so that it only protects INT Drains (a -2?/6 points for 18 PowDef)), or I could just buy +4 INT Levels and save some points and get the effect I really want.

Yes, I'm the the category of players that believes that the Hero System is balanced and that everything works out when you add it up in the end. I'm also the kinda player that just shakes his head and says "I'm still doin' the math on that one" when I look at Ego Attack and BOECV.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
Yes, I'm the the category of players that believes that the Hero System is balanced and that everything works out when you add it up in the end. I'm also the kinda player that just shakes his head and says "I'm still doin' the math on that one" when I look at Ego Attack and BOECV.

/tangent on

Can I offer a litle help on that one? BoECV is properly costed at +1 (IMO) because if it were as expensive as it "should" be it wouldn't be worth the points.

Reference the arguments about the 5th Edition arguments about Damage Shield -- you can make a good case for it requiring Continuous, but that simply makes the power too expensive to be worthwhile relative to the damage it does.

/tangent off

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Can I offer a litle help on that one? BoECV is properly costed at +1 (IMO) because if it were as expensive as it "should" be it wouldn't be worth the points.

I'm not sure I follow. To me, points are about balance. If it wouldn't be worth the points, something in the math is overpriced.

[Lord Liaden]

Let me just weigh in briefly on BOECV compared to Ego Attack: I've always considered it valid to weigh how an Advantage is going to interact with other Advantages when determining how much it should cost. Yes, Ego Attack would give several benefits over an EB BOECV of the same Damage Class; but every Power Advantage you take on the BOECV attack subsequently (Reduced END, AoE, Does Body, etc.) is going to cost half as much as it would if applied to Ego Attack.

It may not balance perfectly, but for me it's close enough. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
Let me just weigh in briefly on BOECV compared to Ego Attack: I've always considered it valid to weigh how an Advantage is going to interact with other Advantages when determining how much it should cost. Yes, Ego Attack would give several benefits over an EB BOECV of the same Damage Class; but every Power Advantage you take on the BOECV attack subsequently (Reduced END, AoE, Does Body, etc.) is going to cost half as much as it would if applied to Ego Attack.

It may not balance perfectly, but for me it's close enough. :)

The "advantages on advantages" issue is a real one. It iompacts a lot of powers - for example, if Telekinesis were costed as not having "indirect" inherently, it would reasonably cost 1x STR, not 1.5x STR. Someone choosing to make it Indirect would have an advantage buying other advantages for it, and it would be consistent with other "attack powers" in costing 5 points per 1d6.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
Yes, Ego Attack would give several benefits over an EB BOECV of the same Damage Class....

I wish I had the book in front of me. Wouldn't a BOECV EB do Body?

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
I wish I had the book in front of me. Wouldn't a BOECV EB do Body?

Afraid not. You'd have to buy a +1 "Does Body" Advantage for it for that. Still, as I indicated above, an 6d6 EB BOECV, Does Body will cost 90 Active Points, while a 6d6 Ego Attack, Does Body will cost 120.

BOECV attacks are also automatically Visible, don't grant Mental Awareness for free, and may not affect Desolidified characters depending on the SFX of the Power.

[Fireg0lem]

Don't forget those 11- skill rolls; a character that wants a lot of scientific skills might buy Scholar, 5-point INT levels (-1/2 only with SS), and pay 1 point for a lot of science skills at relatively high rolls.