Skills Issues

[Markdoc]

If you change the basis of skills to be less related to characteristics how will you deal with everyman skill rolls?

What do you do in a general game when someone has to make a roll for a skill they don't have? As a ref I just make the roll against the most appropriate characteristic.

Yeah, that's a common approach but it's not a great idea, because it stiffs the guy who bought the skill if you give a CHA roll for free and it encourages players not to buy skills (since they get a roll anyway, what's the point?).

I give a base 8- (everyman roll) if it's plausible or just tell the player that, no, they can't do it and need to find another way. And suggest they maybe buy some skills, for next time.

cheers, Mark

[archermoo]

Yeah, that's a common approach but it's not a great idea, because it stiffs the guy who bought the skill if you give a CHA roll for free and it encourages players not to buy skills (since they get a roll anyway, what's the point?).

I give a base 8- (everyman roll) if it's plausible or just tell the player that, no, they can't do it and need to find another way. And suggest they maybe buy some skills, for next time.

cheers, Mark

Generally I'll either do either an 8-, or a Characteristic Roll at minuses.

[Toadmaster]

Do not decouple skills from characteristics, it makes sense to me that a more agile person or a smarter person will learn certain skills faster. However I am open to alternative means of buying skills, I like some of the suggestions of 1 pt = 4 + x stat /5, 2 pts 6+ x stat/5 (numbers given as example only). Perhaps something like this could also be used to increase the cost as the skill improves. Something like 1 pt per increase to a certain level then 2 pts, the 4 pts etc. Since the base number is where the increased cost would be that should be fairly simple, you add the stat modifier afterwards.

Something like the take 20(?) rule in D&D should apply to basic tasks for a character at whatever the game determines to be "journeyman level" most people succeed with their common tasks, a locksmith should be able to open a master lock given a reasonable amount of time (5-10 minutes) and a minimum of distractions (nobody shooting at him).

Skill difficulty levels have a lot of room for improvement. Its not an easy thing to create a chart for every possibility but I think a better more descriptive chart could go along way towards people saying skills are too high. I think this is largely due to not adequately using the difficulty levels.

I like the idea of adding average times for skills, people often use the extra time for a bonus but many skills should take much longer than a phase, in fact outside of combat skills I can't think of many that should take less than a minute, many should take a lot longer. Persuading someone that you are right and they are wrong can take a lifetime, and is very unlikely to take less than a minute unless you are holding a gun on them and now we are talking about intimidation a completely different skill.

I would like to see more subsets within skills, too many include conflicting skills under the same name. Just because I know how to hide stuff well, should not mean I am also good at finding stuff, also knowing how to hide myself from a searcher has little to do with the first two skills. Currently concealment does all of these. There are many similar skills with too broad of an approach.

Similarly there are some spread to thin, Stealth should take care of moving quietly and hiding yourself, a character should not require Stealth and Concealment to be a sneaky bastard. Shadowing is a completely different skill and should remain so as it is not the art of hiding so much as the art of not being noticed by a specific target. In fact acting stealthy may draw the attention of the target while walking right under their nose to buy a paper may be just the thing to make them not notice you.

Perhaps all skills could be a bit more like KS/PS the more focused they are the greater a success is. So using Concealment as written a success is a normal success, but the skill concealing listening devices which is a very narrow focus that same success would make it much harder to detect the device and the sould quality would be much better.


Some discussion of the appropriate use of skills would be worthwhile too, in many games skills are filler and don't need as much definition, in other games skills are a major part of the game and should be pretty specific. In some games PS doctor is fine, in others PS doctor, Perk medical license, KS cardiology (for a cardiologist, pediatrics for a pediatrician etc), KS Pharmacology, KS human biology, KS golf courses with discounts for medical professionals etc is more appropriate.

Hero is very flexible and I don't think you should miss any opportunity to demonstrate that in the rules and examples.


Finally what ever you do, change Paramedics, to first aid, trauma care, emergency medicine or something like that. Paramedic is a profession not a skill. I did not spend 1500 hours in class, hospital and field internships to apply bandaids, I learned to perform most of the skills a doctor will use in the first 30 minutes of a major illness or injury, cardiology, pharmacology, IV therapy, defibrillation and cardioversion etc. That skill is an insult to paramedics and you don't want the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians breathing down your door.

Seriously, I'd appreciate changing the name. I know it was set in stone for 5th but there is no excuse for 6th considering the other stuff on the table.

[Gideon]

It also exists in the germanic language family. The germans express it with a diacritic mark under the h. Some Slavic languages also have it.

Yes, you made your point, but to what end? And what point do you think you made?

My point was to show reasons why I think the language table should stay, and why I don't like Balabanto's suggestion for how to change how the language skill works.

And if I live in New York City, you are absolutely correct. It IS equally easy to be fluent in English, Spanish, or Cantonese. It just requires finding the right teachers, and/or being born in the right neighborhood.

I may be alone in my opinion here, but as far as I am concerned there is very little correlation between how common a language is in your area and how easy it is for you to learn a language.

Yes living near China Town in NYC will give me easy access to a cantonese teacher. That doesn't mean I will have an easier time becoming proficient with the language.

I (in real life) spent 5 years learning spanish in junior high and high school. I have zero proficency with the language, and cannot remember 99% of the vocabulary I was taught let alone the grammar. And forget trying to speak with someone conversationally, I can't even recognize the small number of words I do know when a native speaker uses them because of speed and inflection.

[rjcurrie]

My point was to show reasons why I think the language table should stay, and why I don't like Balabanto's suggestion for how to change how the language skill works.



I may be alone in my opinion here, but as far as I am concerned there is very little correlation between how common a language is in your area and how easy it is for you to learn a language.

Yes living near China Town in NYC will give me easy access to a cantonese teacher. That doesn't mean I will have an easier time becoming proficient with the language.

I (in real life) spent 5 years learning spanish in junior high and high school. I have zero proficency with the language, and cannot remember 99% of the vocabulary I was taught let alone the grammar. And forget trying to speak with someone conversationally, I can't even recognize the small number of words I do know when a native speaker uses them because of speed and inflection.

No, but the background can give you a reason why the character knows the language.

[rjcurrie]

Generally I'll either do either an 8-, or a Characteristic Roll at minuses.

Unless the skill is an everyman skill, anything 8- or better is being too generous; otherwise, what's the point of buying Familiarities.

[TSandman]

Reduce. Radically. There should be a relatively small and difinitively finite set of fairly pricey (5 or even 10 point) skills that are genuinely useful in Heroic adventuring (and thus combat). Followed by a finite number of peripheral or background skills, each representing a fairly broad competency. Lower-point, player/GM defined detail skills should all be sub-sets of these higher point skills - things a character can take for flavor or a complementary roll, never something that you couldn't do with the broader, fixed skill list.

Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?
What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.

We shouldn't oversimplify the skill list in the book either. As a GM that loves specific skills in many situation, I hate it when I have to expand those lists myself everytime, and that is WHEN it is doable (nWoD anyone?)

Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.

In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...

The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)

[Toadmaster]

Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?
What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.

We shouldn't oversimplify the skill list in the book either. As a GM that loves specific skills in many situation, I hate it when I have to expand those lists myself everytime, and that is WHEN it is doable (nWoD anyone?)

Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.

In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...

The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)

Must spread rep, yada yada yada



This is kind of what I was saying, I would like to see skills be more like KS / PS the more specific the better the success result. In a game where skills are more broad you take the basic 10-15 skills, but in games where skills play more part it would be worthwhile to open them up into subcategories. Systems use is another good existing example, it can be a broad category or it can be broken into radar systems, communications systems, guided missile systems, or even further into radar tracking systems, radar intercept systems etc as appropriate for the campaign.

[Opal]

Why limit campaign, GMs and Players with limited skill lists?

Why limit them with a limitted powers list? Hero is effects-based. Anything you can do with a magical, mutant, alient, or technological power, you can build with a Hero power with enough advantages, limitations, linked other powers or whatever. A finite set of mechanical powers gives you an unlimitted set of F/X powers.

It also means that after you've bought PD and ED, you don't have to worry about someone throwing a lightning bolt at you that goes against the WD that he just made up.


Why it would be limitting to have skills work the same way is beyond me. There are, truely, a finite number of things that specialized training can accomplish in a generic story line. You can uncover information, influcence actions, pass obstacles, avert a disaster or so forth. While I don't propose pairing skills down the way some have proposed having only a half-dozen powers, and I still want them to have intuitive, evocative names, I do think we need a finite set of top-level skills that players can take and know that they are broadly competent in an area they want to be competent in.

As it stands now, if you dump some points in Computer Programming you might be a decent or even a great programmer. But, it depends on who your GM is and how grumpy he's feeling that session. You might try to use your programming skills to move the plot along only to find out that you won't be permitted a roll because you didn't take KS: UNIX or something. Not cool.

More detailed skills (and/or levels) are great - and can be of theoretically unlimitted number. They could be used to build characters with more specific concepts or to add color (and specialities) to characters with the upper-level skills.

But, the current aproach is a nightmare.

What is usefull in your games is not necessarily what is in mine.

Ih. If that were entirely true, we couldn't have fixed costs for any power, skill or characteristic. Hero System is a game about heroics, and heroics share certain broad tropes. Fighting is going to be important, and the costs of combat abilities reflect that, just for the most obvious instance.

Keep the skill list about as long as it is, it's not like there are more skills than Powers anyway.

The number of skills is currently potentially infinite, since you can make up any number of PS, KS, or Sci skills.

In fact, why not use what you suggest: Two tiered skills: The general for Superheroics and the more specific for the Heroics or those who are less skill-oriented...

Thank you. Yes, I don't mind the idea of GMs or players defining more specific skills. I just want a finite set of skills that cover all the critical functions of being a Heroic Whatever.

The general should be general tho, as not to be able to do MORE than all the related specific skills: I just hate it when a character with "Science" just know EVERY science as good or better than every other who specialized, just because he could plunk all it's points into ONE skills (unless the game is not skill oriented, that is...)

A top-level general skill should cost more to buy up than a specific skill, so, given comparable points, a "Scientist" should not have nearly the roll of a "Geneticist" or "Herpetologist" in his field. In fact, I'd picture the "Scientist" buying a lower-level skill or narrow skill levels to model his speciality. And, yes, top-level skills should be for the Mr. Spock and James Bond types who are just beyond the pale in thier breadth of competence.

[TSandman]

This is kind of what I was saying, I would like to see skills be more like KS / PS the more specific the better the success result. In a game where skills are more broad you take the basic 10-15 skills, but in games where skills play more part it would be worthwhile to open them up into subcategories. Systems use is another good existing example, it can be a broad category or it can be broken into radar systems, communications systems, guided missile systems, or even further into radar tracking systems, radar intercept systems etc as appropriate for the campaign.

IMHO, Guided-Missile-System, Radar-Tracking-System etc could be as it is in many games, Specialities which of course could add to the skill

I'd keep it a bit more broad for skills

As an example, I like what has been done with System Operation...

Very broad for the basics, splitted into some more chunky component as ideas for options in the basic book, VASTLY expanded in Star Hero...

We must not use 50% of the books just for skill variation either

[TSandman]

Opal...

Thanks for clarifying your stance on skills, what I understood wasn't all that clear.

I agree with most of what you do.

I just thought about this tho... at the Top level, wouldn't it be STATS?

then a selection of broad skills, splitted into more narrow skills then specialities?

Some sample of what I'm thinking of:

PRE -> Social Interaction -> Oratory/Speech -> Legal Arguments
PRE -> Social Interaction -> Diplomacy -> Deal Making
PRE -> Social Interaction -> Carousing -> Flirting/charming
INT -> Sciences -> Physics -> Astrophysics
INT -> Academics -> History -> Regency Era
DEX -> Athletism -> Running -> Sprint
DEX -> Craft/Hobby -> Military -> Miniature Painting

ad nauseam...

Each level is more and more precise, used in less and less condition but cost less and less

Of course, it's just an idea that could underline what you said....

[KawangaKid]

I love Combat Skill Levels, General Skill Levels, Penalty Skill Levels. They, along with the Powers bit of the rules, allow for some really granular realization of characters.

I like being able to buy apparently useless Penalty Skill Levels just to cement my character concept of being unruffled by sudden environmental shifts. I like being able to build a super-expert in one type of combat and pretty good in other types of combat.

And so on. Revisions - will see, but I don't see them needing anything other than perhaps a revision to make the rules more concise. Newbies tend to be overwhelmed by the pages devoted to explaining their use (but they love the levels and so just ask the GM to explain).

[Yansuf]

I would not divorce skills from characteristics.

IMHO, for superhero, pulp or space opera games, there should be fewer, more general skills, For some other types like military special operations, more "realistic" SF, etc. very detailed skill lists are appropriate.
The two tier system may work.

On languages, I also think the type of game matters. For very "realistic" types the language chart is fine, but for the more "pulpish" games I would prefer straight 1 point basic, 2 points fluent, 3 points "like a native".

I actually liked the first edition martial arts.

[Opal]

TSandman: Yes, I suppose, conceptually, the stat is the very top-level, at least organizationally. Things like 'Scientist' or 'Scholar' or 'Social Interaction' were the sort I had in mind.

Also, some fairly specific seeming skills could be 'top level' ones if they had a particularly strong impact on adventuring in general. A top level Detective type skill, for instance. That kind of thing can be key to advancing the plot.

[TSandman]

TSandman: Yes, I suppose, conceptually, the stat is the very top-level, at least organizationally. Things like 'Scientist' or 'Scholar' or 'Social Interaction' were the sort I had in mind.

Also, some fairly specific seeming skills could be 'top level' ones if they had a particularly strong impact on adventuring in general. A top level Detective type skill, for instance. That kind of thing can be key to advancing the plot.

Personally, I just LOVE the way hero treats skills, as in "not one better than the other". I like the concept that HERO doesn't pretend to know what skill is more usefull than others for your game, compared to some other system out there. I also like the fact that you are NOT obliged to have skill.. not obliged as in "if you don't have skills, you still can play the system"...

D&D, WoD and many others forces you to take skills, even some that you wouldn't take juste because if you don't, you ARE screwed...

That mean you can play full Supers where skills wouldn't necessarily have that much effect.

It's that freedom with skills that I like, not being pigeonholed to use Craft that way, Diplomacy this way and Streetwise with 342 modifiers to find black market stuff, just because the system say-so.

I mean... you can leave that out in any system, but only in HERO the whole system don't comes crumbling down on you.

That's why I reacted somewhat forcefully when I saw your poste about reducing skills and putting more emphasis on some than others.