Skills Issues

[Blue]

Here's a tough one for me to judge because I could fall either way:

Ever consider making every skill an everyman skill?

I mean, no, I'm not an acrobat, but on my best day I might be able to tumble through a hoop of flame. I'm no cryptographer, but there's an outside shot I could figure out the symbols on the Book of Souls and open it properly.

Another thought is about "Weapon Familiarity". Paying points for the right to use a weapon might be worth dumping for simplification purposes.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Here's a tough one for me to judge because I could fall either way:

Ever consider making every skill an everyman skill?

I mean, no, I'm not an acrobat, but on my best day I might be able to tumble through a hoop of flame. I'm no cryptographer, but there's an outside shot I could figure out the symbols on the Book of Souls and open it properly.

Another thought is about "Weapon Familiarity". Paying points for the right to use a weapon might be worth dumping for simplification purposes.

But could you fly a jetliner without crashing it on your best day? Of course not, unless you're a trained pilot. Would you be able to pick up the laser pistol the time traveler left behind and fire it without injuring yourself? I doubt it. Can you read Korean? Not unless you've put some time into learning the language.

Everyman skills are things that anyone can reasonably have picked up. The arcane symbols on the Book of Souls would not be an everyman skill.

[Vondy]

Everyman skills are things that anyone can reasonably have picked up. The arcane symbols on the Book of Souls would not be an everyman skill.

Their genre dependent for that reason. However, if you are the lead in The Mummy or the Mummy Returns and have the right language skill you can spout off ancient incantations and succeed. So, in that genre, he might be able to pick of the Book of Souls and whip out some soulificious magical effects. It depends on how you want your game to run. That's why the lists in the book are just rough suggestions and the list is left to the GM. It should probably stay that way.

[Susano]

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).

I'm very much in favor of this.

[pinecone]

But every GM would have to defind what is Normal/Unusual/Exotic for their campaing and settings. Some players could also be quite fond of some skills and use them more than others would, making it "less exotic"... There is the trouble to have characters that can't really be compared if not made for the same setting, for the same GM... (since setting and GM style changes what is Exotic/Rare/Normal...)

I see that as an advantage, rather than a disadd...each game says what is exotic,rare,or common. As for comparing between games, I don't think I understand..."Ha! You loser! Italian love poetry of the middle ages is Rare in our game!!!" If that makes you feel good, well, go ahead.

I've always played it that the player sets the reality meter, if you say that being attacked by ghosts is "common" then it IS. For you anyway, so I don't see the source of your objection....

[TSandman]

I see that as an advantage, rather than a disadd...each game says what is exotic,rare,or common. As for comparing between games, I don't think I understand..."Ha! You loser! Italian love poetry of the middle ages is Rare in our game!!!" If that makes you feel good, well, go ahead.

I've always played it that the player sets the reality meter, if you say that being attacked by ghosts is "common" then it IS. For you anyway, so I don't see the source of your objection....

As long as it's not "how hard a skill is to master" as some other generic rpg had (still has?)..

[ajackson]

It might be worth looking at the cost of levels.

In my experience, other than control rolls for VPPs or RSR, buying up a single skill at 2pp/+1 is almost unheard of; you almost always buy 3 or 5 point levels, because getting two more skills at a net cost of 1pp is almost always worth it. Ponder changing it to be:
2pp/level: 1 skill, as normal
3pp/level: 2 skills (not 3)
4pp/level: 5 skills
5pp/level: all skills under one attribute, or a similar list.

Now, for combat: really, the scaling of levels is odd. Being good at all combat is not significantly more useful than being only good with a specific list of powers that are what I use all the time anyway, but can easily go from 8 point levels to 3 point levels. I would shift 5 point levels down to 4 points, and 8 point levels down to 5 points. Even then, given the cost of Dex, general combat levels aren't very tempting, though if 2 levels can be converted to +1 DC it's probably fairly priced.

[Acid_Crash]

My newest idea for skills is that they should cost more points, start at a lower baseline, and should be harder to improve.

I think the whole 3/2 thing is a little tiring, and I think that the skills that aren't skills, like Combat Skill Levels and Penalty Skill Levels and the Defensive Maneuver skills, which are actually Talents in how they work, should NOT be skills at all, but Talents, since they have Talent like costs.

Those need to be stripped from the skills chapter.

Then, I think HERO system has too many skills... I love how the language skills and weapon familiarity skills work, but there are so many skills that could be combined into more simpler skills that it would make things a bit easier.

Then increase the cost. Instead of the whole 3/2 split, just make each skill rank cost a certain amount of points. I suggest 4 points per rank. No cost 3 to learn than 2 points per rank afterwards, just a simple 4 points per rank.

----

Another slightly more radical idea is to split skills from their base characteristics, I doubt that would happen but it's possible. For some games this works.

[steamteck]

It might be worth looking at the cost of levels.

In my experience, other than control rolls for VPPs or RSR, buying up a single skill at 2pp/+1 is almost unheard of; you almost always buy 3 or 5 point levels, because getting two more skills at a net cost of 1pp is almost always worth it. Ponder changing it to be:
2pp/level: 1 skill, as normal
3pp/level: 2 skills (not 3)
4pp/level: 5 skills
5pp/level: all skills under one attribute, or a similar list.

Now, for combat: really, the scaling of levels is odd. Being good at all combat is not significantly more useful than being only good with a specific list of powers that are what I use all the time anyway, but can easily go from 8 point levels to 3 point levels. I would shift 5 point levels down to 4 points, and 8 point levels down to 5 points. Even then, given the cost of Dex, general combat levels aren't very tempting, though if 2 levels can be converted to +1 DC it's probably fairly priced.

My players buy up individual skills all the time. here's the thing for everyone who says nobody ever does anything I bet there are at least an equal number who do it that way. Flexibility should be added not taken away.
However, What you actually proposed seems to have nothing to do with your statement ( to me at least) and isn't a bad system that doesn't hurt flexibility at all.

Foe use combat levels mainly come into play I guess because of concept. It would never occur to our group to buy a Ben Grimm type character's DEX up past a certain level but skill levels ,sure.
I just don't see combat levels as a bad deal like others. My players love them. Their flexibility makes a 3 point level a great deal for combat investment ( everybody was kung fu fighting!)

[SSgt Baloo]

I think the whole 3/2 thing is a little tiring, and I think that the skills that aren't skills, like Combat Skill Levels and Penalty Skill Levels and the Defensive Maneuver skills, which are actually Talents in how they work, should NOT be skills at all, but Talents, since they have Talent like costs.

Those need to be stripped from the skills chapter.

Agreed. Skill levels that apply to more than a single skill, and any combat skill levels, should be made talents.

Then, I think HERO system has too many skills... I love how the language skills and weapon familiarity skills work, but there are so many skills that could be combined into more simpler skills that it would make things a bit easier.

Then increase the cost. Instead of the whole 3/2 split, just make each skill rank cost a certain amount of points. I suggest 4 points per rank. No cost 3 to learn than 2 points per rank afterwards, just a simple 4 points per rank.

I disagree. The higher cost of a skill than skill levels for it includes the use of that skill at its base level, be it based on a characteristic or not. That, in my book, makes it worth more.

Another slightly more radical idea is to split skills from their base characteristics, I doubt that would happen but it's possible. For some games this works.

Perhaps, but then you have things like people with great dexterity or intellect being no better at what they do than a skilled rock.

I would like to suggest that it should be >optional<, depending on the genre and GM to combine two (or more) closely-related three-point skills, FREX: dex-based skills or detective skills or whatever, subject to GM approval. The first skill is 3 points while subsequent skills are 2 points each. That allows the GM to make, for example, Police Work a compound skill combining the skills the GM thinks every policeman should have (or Detective, or whatever). Compound skills would buy skill levels based on how many skills it was based on. It would not necessarily replace Skill Enhancers since you could only buy compound skills the GM has made available.

I've always wanted the Scientists (as opposed to mere, uncapitalized scientists ) to be not only TOP MEN in their field, but competent in a broad range of sciences unrelated to their specialty. While inappropriate to most Heroic (and below) genres, this is a recurring trope in Superheroic, Pulp, and some Science Fiction settings. I'd like to see some way of modelling the "Mad (or at least slightly unhinged) Genius" who is an expert in his field, and pretty much a journeyman in most other sciences.

[The Horror]

A couple of years ago there was a small thread on these boards that really made me think. And my opinion remains unchanged. I think both characteristics and skills should be done away with entirely.

The original thread is here. I have summarised some of my thoughts from that thread here.



IMO the great strength of HERO is the ability to create anything using the powers. So why do we have characteristics and skills exactly? It seems to me like a holdover from the early days of roleplaying.

I say replace them all with 'abilities'. First the players describe anything that they want their character to be able to do. They then pay some points for their chosen abilities based on how useful the ability is in the campaign, and how good they are at it. A cost system similar to disadvantages say, using some rough levels like "good, excellent, human max, superhuman, godlike being".

So lets say for example that during character creation player #1 says he wants to be able to run fast, and to lift up heavy things. He might buy Running as per the power, and buy Lift as an ability. The GM would look at the generic table provided with the abilities section, and decide that Lift is of moderate use in the campaign. This sets the base amount of points Lift will cost. Then the player decides how well he wants to be able to Lift (ie. good, excellent, human max, etc...).and applies the cost modifier for the rough level he wants the ability at. If a character who doesn't have Lift tries to lift something, he only does as well as a normal person might.

These abilities could be anything not covered by powers, and filling in the roles of characteristics and skills. They would include things like: lifting, looking cool, commander (or born leader), ace pilot, crack shot (and any other skills really), hardy (I'm thinking diseases here), or maybe even speedy. Most other things would be covered by the powers and use the system of balance for those.

Surely you could do the same thing with all the skills, and with the attributes as well. Keep PD, ED, REC, and END as powers. All the rest can be purchased as some sort of generic ability system. The ability to stun someone can be decided based on the amount of damage dealt compared to body/toughness/machismo ability level of the character (with a default number allocated if they don't buy the ability).

If you want an ability done at greater levels than the 5-6 levels provided, maybe a Megascaling or some sort... Oh yes, I can almost feel the power of looking cool at Megascale.



The Horror

[nexus]

I would like to suggest that it should be >optional<, depending on the genre and GM to combine two (or more) closely-related three-point skills, FREX: dex-based skills or detective skills or whatever, subject to GM approval. The first skill is 3 points while subsequent skills are 2 points each. That allows the GM to make, for example, Police Work a compound skill combining the skills the GM thinks every policeman should have (or Detective, or whatever). Compound skills would buy skill levels based on how many skills it was based on. It would not necessarily replace Skill Enhancers since you could only buy compound skills the GM has made available.

I've always wanted the Scientists (as opposed to mere, uncapitalized scientists ) to be not only TOP MEN in their field, but competent in a broad range of sciences unrelated to their specialty. While inappropriate to most Heroic (and below) genres, this is a recurring trope in Superheroic, Pulp, and some Science Fiction settings. I'd like to see some way of modelling the "Mad (or at least slightly unhinged) Genius" who is an expert in his field, and pretty much a journeyman in most other sciences.

This is discussed in some detail in TUS so it would just be a matter of moving that to the corebook(s). I think it would be a worthy addition but, personally, I love the way Skills work by default in Hero. There is just the right level of diversity and focus in the core skills and the simple costing structure makes it easy to add more skills for specific genres (if those aren't already covered by PS, KS or SS), for example Armorsmith in Fantasy Hero

[The Shadow]

The Horror: A very profound idea, that. I honestly don't think there's any chance it will happen, but I think it would be EXTREMELY cool.

Nexus: That's the first time I've ever heard HERO's skill costing system described as 'simple'. Most games just have a flat cost for skills, instead of multiple different ways with lots of exceptions. I honestly question whether all the ins, outs, and exceptions really add anything at all to the game.

[Jomster]

Re granularity

So I've got INT 17 and I'm using my demolitions skill to defuse a particularly nasty bomb to stop the anarchists from blowing up Prince Fastbaum's zeppelin... I've really got to make this roll as we're 1,000 feet up over the icy North Sea and falling into that from this height really won't be good.

After some difficulty mods the GM tells me I need 12 or less to succeed. "Come on dice, come on you can do it...."

I roll....

and get 13.

No...... but wait.... I point out to the GM that actually I'm 80% of the way to needing 13 or less. You see my INT is 17 and that's one point away from the magic +1 to my roll.

He buys my argument and I roll a d6 (ignoring 6's) and get a 3! Good show chaps, we've saved the day! Would have failed on a 5 but got 4 or less so we're home and dry.

The anarchists' foul plot is foiled, Prince Fastbaum will live to make it to the banquet in Finland and our heroes will avoid an untimely chilly end in the cold North Sea!

What do you think? Would you use this approach to give extra granularity to skills and avoid the breakpoint problem?

[Funksaw]

I like the skill system the way it is - mostly, but my only problem is that it seems too granular.

I believe it is probably best to adopt an approach where instead of buying individual skills, you buy broader "skill sets" - i.e., "science & technology" instead of "biology, electronics, inventing, computer operation, computer security" -- at the CHA/5 for 3 + 2 for each additional point. If you really want a character who gets bonuses ONLY for computer security, you could add that on as a "specialty" at a 1-to-1 point basis. (And yes, there's overlap - "science & technology" might overlap with "detective" at the "computer hacking" area - but you know what? Go with it.)

It's a subtle change, but the end result is that:

A) Less points will be spent on skills.
B) Less time will be spent designing a character's skills, which makes the game simpler for new players.
C) With fewer skills on the sheet, there's less of a temptation to take time out and figure out if you can eek out a few more points by increasing DEX/INT or buying up skills.
D) It fits the comicbook genre better as a baseline but does not rule out GMs wanting to play more realistic genres.

I would also make every skill based on a characteristic. Personal preference, but I'd rather only have one type of skill and one type of skill costs.