Skills Issues

[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.

jg