Skills Issues

[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.

[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.