Skills Issues

[Xotl]

7 + CHAR/3 seems to be looking very nice. I quite like the expanded 10-14 range, general increased granularity, and utilization of the same divider as CV calculations.

[BobGreenwade]

7 + CHAR/3 seems to be looking very nice. I quite like the expanded 10-14 range, general increased granularity, and utilization of the same divider as CV calculations.

Keep in mind, though, that some of us (myself among them; I've already posted my reasons) see that last point as a problem, not a bonus.

[Chris Goodwin]

The exact divider.... objectively, doesn't really matter that much, in fact maybe not in the slightest.... but (IMO) it has to feel right to the majority of existing Hero players.

I could argue about why it's not... but ultimately I'd be trying to find reasons why only because it didn't feel right, trying to either fight for a position or just justify why not to use it.

(For the record, I don't like the feel of CHAR/3, but anything I would say about it would boil down to that.)

[PhilFleischmann]

Well, for one, if skills are based on CHA/3, that makes the CHA (for the purposes of skills, anyway) 2/3 more useful, which means the price of the relevent CHA's might need to go up.

[Xotl]

Keep in mind, though, that some of us (myself among them; I've already posted my reasons) see that last point as a problem, not a bonus.

Oh I noticed; I just respectuflly disagree. I didn't bother adding in the "why" in detail because the arguments have already been made over the past two pages and I didn't want to rehash things, but instead just sum up the side I like and add my vote, for what it's worth.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, for one, if skills are based on CHA/3, that makes the CHA (for the purposes of skills, anyway) 2/3 more useful, which means the price of the relevent CHA's might need to go up.

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.

[The Main Man]

If the Combat and Skill calculations become identical then there's no need for a 10-Point "Overall" Level anymore unless a line more artificial than 5e is drawn between Combat and Skills.

[James Gillen]

If the Combat and Skill calculations become identical then there's no need for a 10-Point "Overall" Level anymore unless a line more artificial than 5e is drawn between Combat and Skills.

The Overall level still covers a broader category than 8 point levels with All Skills or All Combat.

jg

[The Main Man]

The Overall level still covers a broader category than 8 point levels with All Skills or All Combat.

jg

Oh yeah, I forgot about Find Weakness and general CHAR rolls.

You are correct sir.

[Talon]

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.

There's not much room for skill levels to go down IMO. When I looked at CHAR / 3 my thoughts on stat pricing were:

STR x1
DEX x3 (could make a case for x4 but I doubt it would fly)
CON x1
INT x2 (6 points for +1 to Char roll; still cheap but better than now)
EGO x2
PRE x2 (just like INT)

BODY x1 (move it to the lower set of stats as it doesn't have a stat roll)

[Klaus Mogensen]

Or the price of skill levels needs to go down. It's relative pricing that's important, so we need to consider that an imbalance can be fixed by repricing either the cheaper option higher or the more expensive option lower.

In the Characteristics thread, I have just posted a characteristics set based on bonuses = CHA/2½ and reduced cost of skill levels.

It will make skill increases significantly cheaper (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), though that can be remedied by using a skill roll with a broader range than 3d6.

- Klaus

[GamePhil]

It will make skill increases significantly cheaper (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), though that can be remedied by using a skill roll with a broader range than 3d6.
- Klaus

In my experience, it's not skill increases that need to be cheaper, but possibly skills themselves. A character with a breadth of knowledge is very expensive, while a character with a narrow focus and high Skills can be done comparitively easily. Still, every little bit helps.

[The Main Man]

Here's a thought:
1pt buys Familiarity
3pts buys full use

OTOH, 1pt buys "Weapon Familiarity" for a single weapon, while 2pts lets you use an entire group (if one exists)

If all Skills were put to this kind of standard, then perhaps it should only cost 2pts to buy full use of a skill.

AFA Skill Levels go though, maybe they could go to 1pt like Background Skills.

[PhilFleischmann]

I know very little about martial arts, so correct me if I'm wrong.

It doesn't seem like a student learns martial arts one maneuver at a time, yet that's the way the system works: to build a "black belt" you buy all the maneuvers, and the KS: That Particular MA, and whatever weapons elements and related skills you need. But how do you buy someone who is less of an expert than that? It seems a bit strange to just buy some of the maneuvers, because then he can use them every bit as well as the expert.

I propose allowing some toned down, "beginner maneuvers". these, if bought with the maneuver-building system in UMA, would cost less than the minimum 3 points set by that book.

For example, if a particular MA has the following maneuvers:

4 M Dodge --/+5
4 M Strike +0/+2/+2d6
5 Def Strike +1/+3
4 M Block +2/+2
3 M Grab -1/-1/+10 STR
5 Off. Strike -2/+1/+4d6

A beginning student of this art might have:

2 Beginner's Dodge --/+4
2 Beginner's Strike +0/+1/+1d6
2 Beginner's Defensive Strike +0/+2
2 Beginner's Block +1/+1
2 Beginner's Grab -1/-1/+5 STR
2 Beginner's Offensive Strike -2/+0/+3d6

Because these maneuvers are so cheap (and thematically because they're biginner's maneuvers after all), they can't have Skill Levels applied to them. A beginner with an MA probably shouldn't have levels with it anyway.

This represents a character who is starting to learn how to use the techniques of the MA, but doesn't have it completely down yet. These "beginner's manuevers" should be thought of as not separate maneuvers, but as intermediate versions of the full maneuvers. Presumably, such a character will eventually spend XP to upgrade his Beginner's Defensive Strike, to the full Defensive Strike, for +3 points, etc. Only the "full" versions can have skill levels applied.

I came up with this idea because I wanted a character who'd had a little bit of MA training. It didn't seem right to just buy him, say, the full Defensive Strike and Martial Grab, but not have any knowledge at all of the dodging and blocking techniques. It seemed more realistic to have learned a bit of all the maneuvers, but still need some more practice/training with them.

What do you think? I'm especially interested to hear from those of you who actually know about martial arts and how they are taught/learned. Is this more realistic?

[AnotherSkip]

I do like this, but it might be restricted to advancement concerned Gm's