Skills Issues

[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.