Revised Skill System for HERO - looking for feedback please!

[greypaladin_01]

HERO: Skill Mechanics Rework v0.1

 

Goal: The goal of this document is rework and streamline the dice mechanics for HERO System in order to simplify and increase ease of use for new players. It is not looking to recreate systems from scratch but to use existing systems in slightly different ways to facilitate faster and smoother gameplay. However later versions my offer alternate system methods, but for how looking for something that can get into game usable states quickly.    Thank you for @Doc Democracy for the inspiration for many of these ideas from the examples character sheets posted and to everyone on the boards in earlier discussions on this!

 

 

Core Mechanic: In order to keep in current gaming trends and to streamline how dice rolls work in play, changing from Official HERO rolling to an additive system needing to equal or exceed a target number.

 

New Roll: 3d6 + Relevant Skill + Modifiers VS Target DC. (Base DC = 10)

• 11 or less on 3d6 is the same as 10 or higher on 3d6

 

Combat Rolls (old): 11 + OCV – DCV = Number or Less on 3d6

- alternate this could be viewed as 11 + OCV – 3d6 = Target DCV hit.

 

Combat Rolls (new): 3d6 + OCV + Skill Levels + Modifiers = Target DCV

• for this system DCV is calculated as normal but added to a base of 10
• example: DCV 5 character would be DCV 15

 

 

Skill Checks: Perform skill checks by the core mechanic (3d6 + Skill Level + Mods vs Target DC)

 

Difficulty Class: Base DC 10 modified by difficulty. Character needs to equal or exceed the target DC in order to succeeded.

 

DC By Task Difficulty: (these numbers need review, may need to modify by genre?)

• Routine: 5-7
• Easy: 8-9
• Average: 10-11
• Hard: 12-13
• Extreme: 14-15
• Folly: 16+

 

Skill Conversion from normal HERO: for sake of conversion, the skill information will be converted from standard HERO System rules. Purchase as normal, then convert over to the new format after.

 

Skill rolls in the new system start at +0 for the equivalent of an 11- roll (BASE), each point under BASE roll is the equal to -1 on the skill roll and each point over BASE is equal to +1 skill roll.

 

Examples:

 

Everyman Skills: Standard HERO skill is 8- roll, new system is -3 skill roll

Standard Skills: Standard HERO skill is 11- roll, new system is +0 skill roll

 

Experienced Skills: Standard HERO skill is 13- roll, the new system is +2 skill roll

 

SKILL MODIFIERS: As in standard HERO there will be circumstances that will modify the skill DC or Skill Roll itself.

 

• Bonuses: as per HERO – extra time, positive circumstances, etc – this are bonus that adds to your existing Skill Roll. GM will inform the player of the bonus at time of roll.
• Penalties: as per HERO – rushed attempt, lack of proper tools, poor circumstances, etc – these penalties will increase the Target DC by their amount.

 

Example: Randall the Rogue is trying to pick the lock on the back door of shop during the middle of the night. Unfortunately his lock picks were confiscated earlier by the guards and so he is having to wing it. Randall's base Lockpicking (security systems) skill is +2 (13- in classic HERO) and he is taking taking extra time so the GM gives him +1 bonus. The lock is decent but nothing special, Average quality, so the GM decides the base DC is only 11, however due to the lack of lockpicks there would be a -2 penalty causing the final Target DC to be 13. Therefore Randall's player will be rolling 3d6 + Skill of 2 + Extra time bonus of 1 for a total of 3d6+3 and will need to get a total of 13 or higher.

 

Obviously all of this shakes out to being the same as classic hero expect that the players only have to worry about any bonuses they are given not the total of the penalties and will only have to roll and add. Looking this over I note that perhaps I need to rework the standard Skill Modifier chart to just make it all additive as well for ease of use. I am open to feedback there.

 

 

UPCOMING ADDITIONS:

 

• Characteristics Contests: based on how STR rolls use BODY totals for Grabbing in combat. Working on expansion of this for dealing with things that would normally be handled by CHA skill rolls. Currently looking over things like Forcing Open doors, Initiative Ties, Reflex checks when two characters are both trying to grab same items.

 

• Presence Attacks: This is another stand alone system that is not utilized elsewhere. Not I am looking to see if there is a way to give this more weight... or at least way to use other stats the same way. Perhaps (for older editions) a way to make Comeliness Attacks in a similar vein. Open to ideas here.  Also trying to decide if PRE and EGO are defense or if that is too easy for Egoists to ignore PRE attacks.

 

 

--One last note:  I would like to update this in the future without spamming new topics.  Is there a way to edit the starting post just later on, or can I only add new posts down the chain?

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, greypaladin_01 said:

--One last note:  I would like to update this in the future without spamming new topics.  Is there a way to edit the starting post just later on, or can I only add new posts down the chain?

 

There should be three dots at the top right of your post.  Click that and Edit should be one of your choices.

 

Most of this just reworks the math into a different form, so no big deal.  You do need something to replace rolling half or under the target number, if you want to retain any of those rules. Doubling the DC isn't a practical alternative, I suspect.  Maybe a flat amount that the roll succeeds by?  Make the roll by 10?  That would allow an unskilled (-3 penalty) roll to achieve such a success on only a routine task.

 

As for PRE defense, I prefer EGO as the sole defense. There is no reason for an impressive person to not be easily impressed themselves, where a strong, disciplined mind seems more likely to see past the flash to the objective reality.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Cloppy Clip]

Like Hugh says, this is mostly just presenting the HERO mechanics differently, so I don't see it affecting gameplay that much. Building on your ideas, though, have you considered dividing all characteristics by 5 and making them the same as the modifiers? So a 10 in the old system would become +0, and for 5 points you could raise a characteristic by 1. You'd lose a bit of granularity, and you'd have to decide whether to put a cap on negative characteristics or not, but since figured characteristics are out in 6E everything seems to work out to multiples of 5 now.

 

Regardless of whether that's useful or not, I'm interested in hearing about your further ideas for this, particularly the expansion on Presence Attacks.

 

EDIT: And then my brain caught up to my mouth and remembered the 2d6 damage you start with from STR. So maybe have characteristics start at +2, and set target numbers to 12 by default? It loses a little of the aesthetic appeal, but otherwise I don't think that should break anything.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Cloppy Clip

[greypaladin_01]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

There should be three dots at the top right of your post.  Click that and Edit should be one of your choices.

Awesome!  Thank you.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Most of this just reworks the math into a different form, so no big deal.  You do need something to replace rolling half or under the target number, if you want to retain any of those rules. Doubling the DC isn't a practical alternative, I suspect.  Maybe a flat amount that the roll succeeds by?  Make the roll by 10?  That would allow an unskilled (-3 penalty) roll to achieve such a success on only a routine task.

 

Honestly I had completely forgotten that rule was even a thing.  I don't remember it from 4th and if it was in 5th my group never used it.   Yes, i will need to adjust for it.   Although a quick look says that it is only for combat To-Hit rolls and nothing else in the system.  (6E2 118)  and even that is only an optional rule.  Which personally I feel is not really useful in HERO.  The odds of them coming up are so rare anyway.    However, it might be something as simple as adding half again the DCV value as the 'critical' threshold.    DCV base 6+10 = 16.   16/2 = 8 so for the character standard DCV is 16 with critical DCV 24.    ...although combat manuvers and skill levels would make the math a pain.   Sticking a pin to think over later.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As for PRE defense, I prefer EGO as the sole defense. There is no reason for an impressive person to not be easily impressed themselves, where a strong, disciplined mind seems more likely to see past the flash to the objective reality.

 

Near as I can tell RAW uses PRE which is mostly what I've done in the past, but I agree that in many ways EGO feels like it is more appropriate.   However I could also see argument made for this being down to Genre and Table Style.   I will give it more thought and see if any other insights come up.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Cloppy Clip said:

Like Hugh says, this is mostly just presenting the HERO mechanics differently, so I don't see it affecting gameplay that much. Building on your ideas, though, have you considered dividing all characteristics by 5 and making them the same as the modifiers? So a 10 in the old system would become +0, and for 5 points you could raise a characteristic by 1. You'd lose a bit of granularity, and you'd have to decide whether to put a cap on negative characteristics or not, but since figured characteristics are out in 6E everything seems to work out to multiples of 5 now.

 

Regardless of whether that's useful or not, I'm interested in hearing about your further ideas for this, particularly the expansion on Presence Attacks.

 

EDIT: And then my brain caught up to my mouth and remembered the 2d6 damage you start with from STR. So maybe have characteristics start at +2, and set target numbers to 12 by default? It loses a little of the aesthetic appeal, but otherwise I don't think that should break anything.

 

This does sound interesting, but the secondary goal of this overhaul is something that can be utilized for people with the minimal revisions needed to any existing published material.   Thus I am trying to keep things as close to current functions as I can while essentially giving it a new coat of paint and UI change for player ease of use.   

 

Although filing the ideas away for further exploration in any case!

[unclevlad]

As an alternative to a flat...if you roll well enough to move it into the harder category, then perhaps there's minor advantages.  If time matters, maybe you execute it faster than normal.  So if you have a task rated Average, and the player rolls enough to get an Extreme-level success, it's done quicker, or with flair. 

 

Also, if you don't want to make it automatic, then the player can "shoot for the moon" and elect to roll for a higher level...like Telepathy, where shooting for deep memories is harder than surface thoughts.

 

Yeah, this is basically swapping "roll high" for "roll low."  I remember we had a pretty long discussion on this a few years ago.  There might've been little wrinkles, but I don't remember any huge problems.  What you're introducing, really, is the task level, which can be a useful guideline for GMs.

 

Mmm...one note.  What is an "Experienced" skill roll?  That's not a term in 6E1 or 6E2, APG I or APG 2, checking the indices.  And standard doesn't have a fixed roll, it's tied to the underlying stat. Also remember that 

--standard skills have Familiarity (8-) where Everyman is used simply to say it's free, Proficiency (10-), then standard (9 + CHAR/5).

--background skills  have Famil, Prof, AND General...a flat 11-, not tied to a characteristic, then standard.

 

So an approach can be:

3d6 + SkillFactor + SituationalMods >= Task Difficulty Rating.

SkillFactor: the base is

--Famil:  -3

--Prof: -1

--General:  0

--standard (based on a characteristic:  CHAR/5 (using standard Hero round) - 2  (because the baseline is 9, not 11).

then add in levels that apply.  Not the prettiest to say it's CHAR/5 - 2, but perhaps no better or worse than saying 9 + CHAR/5.

 

And the situational mods are as you've noted.  

 

But you can't ignore the impact of a high DEX or INT, and your notation seems to confuse the CHAR-based roll from the skill-based.  How do we get that our thief, in your lockpicking example, is "+2"?  You can't refer to a line on the old character sheet;  it has to be self-contained.

 

EDIT:  I thought about tweaking the base target number for a skill roll, to eliminate that -2 and have it be a flat CHAR/5.  (You'd also have to tweak the familiarity and proficiency and general levels to reflect a diffferent baseline.)  Simpler there...but now you've got a different baseline for skill rolls (12) versus combat rolls (10).  I'd rather keep the -2 tweak on characteristic skills mods...which are something you can precompute trivially and put onto a character sheet, or incorporate into a spreadsheet.  It leaves the mechanics consistent at the table, and that's to be preferred.

[Cloppy Clip]

Ah, if the goal's to have something that can be passed on and used at the table with current HERO material then, yes, I agree that messing around with the presentation of characteristics probably goes a bit too far. It would remind me of the OSR games that use Ascending AC, because no matter how much I prefer Ascending AC, having to convert on the fly when using books that used the traditional AC system took me away from what I was trying to do, and added another point where something could go wrong. Which I could easily see happening if people were looking up a villain in the middle of combat and thinking to themselves "80 STR, so that would be +16? Or is it +14, or something else? Oh dear..."

 

For the critical hit solution, an exact equivalent of the probabilities would be rolling (21 + n)/2, where n is the number you need to roll on the dice. For the critical hit example, n would be 10 + DCV - OCV or better. Which would mean that you'd score a crit on a roll of (31 + DCV - OCV)/2, which with a bonus of your OCV gives a target number of (31 + DCV + OCV)/2. So, since 31/2 is roughly the same as 15, you could set the target number for a crit as 15 + the average of the attacker's OCV and the defender's DCV.

 

Now that is quite messy, so I understand completely if you don't want to use it, but that gives you nearly the exact same probabilities as the current HERO crit system, so it might be worth checking whatever method you go for against that to see if they give comparable results.

[unclevlad]

If you MUST have crits, which I loathe...whatever you do, KEEP IT SIMPLE.  

[greypaladin_01]

5 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

As an alternative to a flat...if you roll well enough to move it into the harder category, then perhaps there's minor advantages.  If time matters, maybe you execute it faster than normal.  So if you have a task rated Average, and the player rolls enough to get an Extreme-level success, it's done quicker, or with flair. 

 

Also, if you don't want to make it automatic, then the player can "shoot for the moon" and elect to roll for a higher level...like Telepathy, where shooting for deep memories is harder than surface thoughts.

 

Yeah, this is basically swapping "roll high" for "roll low."  I remember we had a pretty long discussion on this a few years ago.  There might've been little wrinkles, but I don't remember any huge problems.  What you're introducing, really, is the task level, which can be a useful guideline for GMs.

 

Mmm...one note.  What is an "Experienced" skill roll?  That's not a term in 6E1 or 6E2, APG I or APG 2, checking the indices.  And standard doesn't have a fixed roll, it's tied to the underlying stat. Also remember that 

--standard skills have Familiarity (8-) where Everyman is used simply to say it's free, Proficiency (10-), then standard (9 + CHAR/5).

--background skills  have Famil, Prof, AND General...a flat 11-, not tied to a characteristic, then standard.

 

So an approach can be:

3d6 + SkillFactor + SituationalMods >= Task Difficulty Rating.

SkillFactor: the base is

--Famil:  -3

--Prof: -1

--General:  0

--standard (based on a characteristic:  CHAR/5 (using standard Hero round) - 2  (because the baseline is 9, not 11).

then add in levels that apply.  Not the prettiest to say it's CHAR/5 - 2, but perhaps no better or worse than saying 9 + CHAR/5.

 

And the situational mods are as you've noted.  

 

But you can't ignore the impact of a high DEX or INT, and your notation seems to confuse the CHAR-based roll from the skill-based.  How do we get that our thief, in your lockpicking example, is "+2"?  You can't refer to a line on the old character sheet;  it has to be self-contained.

 

 

There is alot here but I'll try and sum up.   

 

Yes it is just "add up" system at the core in place of Roll Or Under of Base HERO.   However that really is just all it is... a math flip at base.

 

The core skill for Base HERO is 11-  either as a default skill that is purchased at 3 points for that value like KS or it is what you get for a 9+CHA/5 with a stat of 10.   Therefore it is the base value I am working everything around.

 

The math for rolling 11 or less on 3d6 is the same as the math for rolling 10 or higher on 3d6... so this is our point of flipping the math.

 

As far as 'experienced' skills.. you are right there is not term in book.  That is my place holder for any skill that is over 11-, either by having higher stats that give you better role or having spent points on a skill to raise it in the Base HERO system.   Therefore skill values are calculated off olds sheets as follows.

8- roll is 3 under 11- so it becomes a -3 skill roll in the adding system.

11- roll is equal to 11- so it becomes a +0 skill roll in the adding system.

13- roll is 2 higher than 11- so it becomes a +2 skill roll in the adding system.   (also this would be Randall's skill roll in Base HERO)

 

Does this help clarify?

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

If you MUST have crits, which I loathe...whatever you do, KEEP IT SIMPLE.  

 

Agreed... i do not like them either.  But i should at least try to make them fuctional if I can.   Optional rule anyway.

[unclevlad]

I get the flip from roll low to roll high, that's trivial.

 

You CAN'T use a reference to the old sheet because that information doesn't exist...you're doing a new sheet.  So give the method.  A standard roll's base value is 9 + (CHAR/5).  It's not 11, it's not 13, it's none of those.  So for your system, it's (CHAR/5) - 2.  For the starting value of 10, CHAR/5 == 2.  -2, means you're at 0.  11- roll low, 10+ in roll high.

 

Also:  don't conflate the bonus from an elevated characteristic, with anything like a level (+PER from enhanced perception, and some similar instances, is a form of level.)  They're separate.  I should make the process clearer:

 

Skill roll mechanics

3d6 + Skill/PER baseline + skill/PER levels/bonus + situational mods >= Task Difficulty

 

As I noted, this just lets you precompute all your baselines, so you don't have to do that at the table, then just incorporate the (usually) simple numbers for levels/bonus and situational mods.  

[Joe Walsh]

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As for PRE defense, I prefer EGO as the sole defense. There is no reason for an impressive person to not be easily impressed themselves, where a strong, disciplined mind seems more likely to see past the flash to the objective reality.

 

Wouldn't PRE have to be priced <1 per, and EGO as >1 per?

 

[Doc Democracy]

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

-standard (based on a characteristic:  CHAR/5 (using standard Hero round) - 2  (because the baseline is 9, not 11).

 

Not sure what @greypaladin_01 is thinking but it might be that he has decided to take characteristics out of skills and you get a base 11 or less, or 0 modifier to skill for 3 points.  It means your highly dextrous character buys level with Dex skills rather than buying up Dex.

 

It does lead to a confusing situation where Dex skills have nothing to do with Dex but it does avoid that ugly equation. 😀

 

Doc

Edited May 23, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[unclevlad]

His "experienced" suggests he intends to keep the CHAR-based rolls, just didn't express himself very effectively.

 

6 hours ago, Joe Walsh said:

 

Wouldn't PRE have to be priced <1 per, and EGO as >1 per?

 

 

Mmmm......probably not.  PER is IMO the 3rd most important characteristic for skill rolls.  It is one you can blow off, to be sure, but Conversation and Persuasion can be useful for intel gathering indirectly, for example.  Plus it has a direct form of attack built in.  EGO doesn't, especially not in 6E.  

 

Also, to extend Hugh's suggestion...if defending against PRE attacks --> EGO, then we can make attacking mental powers --> PRE.  

--Mental Illusions...target can make a breakout roll...normally based on EGO.  Make it based on PRE.

--Mental Entangle...you attack it with PRE-based dice, instead of EGO-based.

 

I'm not sure this is necessary, and possibly not all that desirable;  it feels like it's not that big an improvement, and feels harder to explain.  I'd also want to check throughout to see where else a change like this might be needed...Summon, for example.  YMMV here.

[greypaladin_01]

At this time I am not looking to remove CHA from skills.   What I am doing is working on something that can be viewed as stand alone but also simple to convert existing hero products over to.

 

 

At this time it would probably have to be something like the formula above or something along the lines of Skill Value = +1 per full 5 points in CHA over 10.   

 

I am not sure about PRE vs Mental Powers.  However I do feel that the EGO/INT system from 3rd Edition works much better than what we have in the current versions of HERO.   So perhaps something like that.   Still reviewing the options there.

 

[unclevlad]

+1 per full 5 points over 10 is at least as inobvious, and doesn't allow for low Characteristics...for example, animals.  You'd also be modifying the rounding rule, in effect, as a 13 gives a 12-, a +1 skill level.  You wouldn't be adding it til the CHAR was 15.  

 

There isn't any real different in 9 + CHAR/5 versus CHAR/5 - 2 in terms of ease of understanding, or clunkiness.  I'd strongly suggest just forgetting about "standard roll is 11-" and "experienced roll."  There's 3 fixed-level rolls (familiar and proficient for any skill, and General for background skills), then there's CHAR-based, which covers the standard skills like Electronics and Acrobatics, and everything related to PER.  11- is the conceptual baseline...the skill roll of a normal person trained in a skill, and perhaps more significantly, the roll to hit when OCV = DCV, and there's no other factors at play.  The roll tables for skills and combat then share the same notional basis, which makes learning the game a WHOLE lot simpler.

 

 

[dmjalund]

Mental Illusions based on PRE would be like Super-gaslighting.

"Do you believe me, or your own eyes!"

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

+1 per full 5 points over 10 is at least as inobvious, and doesn't allow for low Characteristics...for example, animals.  You'd also be modifying the rounding rule, in effect, as a 13 gives a 12-, a +1 skill level.  You wouldn't be adding it til the CHAR was 15.  

 

There isn't any real different in 9 + CHAR/5 versus CHAR/5 - 2 in terms of ease of understanding, or clunkiness.  I'd strongly suggest just forgetting about "standard roll is 11-" and "experienced roll."  There's 3 fixed-level rolls (familiar and proficient for any skill, and General for background skills), then there's CHAR-based, which covers the standard skills like Electronics and Acrobatics, and everything related to PER.  11- is the conceptual baseline...the skill roll of a normal person trained in a skill, and perhaps more significantly, the roll to hit when OCV = DCV, and there's no other factors at play.  The roll tables for skills and combat then share the same notional basis, which makes learning the game a WHOLE lot simpler.

 

 

 

The big drive here is to make things visibly less complex and folk like subtraction less than addition (and both better than multiplication or division). 

 

You raise some issues there but it might be that you could replace characteristic numbers (on the character sheet) with modifiers.  So DEX 10 would be 0, Dex 13 or 15 would be +1 etc.  You could then simply have the base skill as [DEX mod].

 

If the base mechanic behind this presentation of the system is that you get a success by rolling 10 or better on a modified dice roll you hide all the calculations from the player.  Peeking behind the curtain you can see it all but the DEX modifier is calculated as DEX/5-2 and written on the sheet as a simple number.  Skills can then utilise that modifier without regularly having to revisit the formula.

 

Personally, I would only have a characteristic on the sheet if it was different from 0, the presumption should be there is no modifier to the skill.

 

Doc

 

6 hours ago, greypaladin_01 said:

At this time I am not looking to remove CHA from skills.   What I am doing is working on something that can be viewed as stand alone but also simple to convert existing hero products over to.

 

I have, over the years come to think of characteristics as something people have come to expect in their games and they were only there because D&D conditioned people to expect them.

I think stuff like STR and DEX and PRE are black box entities that do not belong in a "pure" HERO system.  They are kind of an amalgam of skill and power and they skew things because of their existence.  Just look at the squabble about hand attack if you dont believe me.  We would be better off without actual characteristics and a bit of guidance on how you might represent stuff like - "he is hugely strong" through powers and skills.  And yes I realise you might need to put one or two things like Lifting into the powers to accommodate this.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

On 5/22/2023 at 8:21 PM, greypaladin_01 said:

Near as I can tell RAW uses PRE which is mostly what I've done in the past, but I agree that in many ways EGO feels like it is more appropriate.   However I could also see argument made for this being down to Genre and Table Style.   I will give it more thought and see if any other insights come up.

 

PRE was the starting point.  Greater of EGO and PRE was a rule/optional rule in some editions.

 

I got to thinking about characteristics in the shift from 5e to 6e.  DEX went from 3 points to 2 points, but that's what it cost when it provided OCV and DCV - all we did was remove SPD.  My first thought was that it was overpriced, but really it's other characteristics that are underpriced.  DEX, INT and PRE provide skill rolls and some other benefit (initiative, PER and PRE attacks, respectively).  Make them 2 points each, and a -1 limitation means +1 to all skill rolls based on this stat (likely "and base Char rolls) costs 5 points.  Reduce if you can't apply that to more than one roll at a time (no complimentary skill based on the same stat) or if it only applies to a subset of such rolls.

 

That also allows +5 Initiative, +1 to PER rolls and +1d6 PRE attacks to cost 5 points, again reduced if it's limited.

 

But that leaves PRE Defense out.  So make EGO, at 1 point per +1 EGO, half about PRE defense and half about mental strength (EGO rolls and defense against mental powers).

 

23 hours ago, Joe Walsh said:

 

Wouldn't PRE have to be priced <1 per, and EGO as >1 per?

 

 

PRE is currently 1 point and should be 2 based on the cost of increasing its components (most notably skill rolls).  I'd keep EGO at 1 per because there are less EGO rolls (no skills) and PRE defense should be cheaper than PRE attacks, similar to other defenses.  In a game based mainly on mental powers, I would consider boosting the cost of EGO. It is the equivalent of limited Mental Defense in defending against most mental powers, so if those are more common, a higher cost is reasonable.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't see any need to change anything, but its your campaign to do with what you wish.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I got to thinking about characteristics in the shift from 5e to 6e.  DEX went from 3 points to 2 points, but that's what it cost when it provided OCV and DCV - all we did was remove SPD.  My first thought was that it was overpriced, but really it's other characteristics that are underpriced.  DEX, INT and PRE provide skill rolls and some other benefit (initiative, PER and PRE attacks, respectively).  Make them 2 points each, and a -1 limitation means +1 to all skill rolls based on this stat (likely "and base Char rolls) costs 5 points.  Reduce if you can't apply that to more than one roll at a time (no complimentary skill based on the same stat) or if it only applies to a subset of such rolls.

 

For INT:  one thing I noticed is, when a character has a VPP with a skill roll to tweak it in combat, +5 INT is...all but free.  Because you get +1 to a skill roll you need, and which will almost always have levels, and +1 to all PER rolls, which is 3 points.  And that's even before +1 to any other INT-based skills;  most characters can get something out of at least a couple of em.  The upper bound for me tends to be 28 INT;  that's a 15- PER and all the INT skills, and at that point I'm getting disinclined to improve that generally.  Maybe specifically...like Telescopic, especially for the Sight Group.  There's times I like higher, but  usually that's for characterization purposes.

 

So...yeah, INT is likely too cheap, but I'm not sure I'd go up to 2 CP per +1 INT.  +1 to all INT skills is 4;  +1 to all standard PER rolls (Danger Sense is an exception) is 3.  That's 7 points, and basically covers what +5 INT gives, so I'd lean to 3 points for +2 INT.  Even if the costing is at those 2 point increments, like STUN or END...there's no discount for buying less than a full increment.  That's only gonna come into play at 13 and 23 INT;  at 13, it's probably OK to charge the extra bit.  At 23, you already need to invest quite a bit to get to the 22, so it's not that much different.  

 

For PRE:  +1 to all PRE skills is 4.  What's the value of its offensive and defensive aspects?  PRE attacks don't scale that well, and even a moderate level of PRE makes it pretty tough to get much effect.  Granted, this is seriously situationally dependent.  Still:  I don't think it's worth an extra 6 points tho, so I'd suggest the cost of PRE is also 3 CP per +2 PRE.

 

Another point would be that I don't think it's a great idea to make a skill-based character too expensive to build.  If you want that 18 INT, 18 PRE skillmonger, at 2 CP per, you're adding 16 points.  Even my 3 for 2, it's adding 8...just to stay even. This may be a case where...yeah, OK, from a theoretical perspective, INT (at least) is underpriced, but from the perspective of the overall character, it may not be.  

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

So...yeah, INT is likely too cheap, but I'm not sure I'd go up to 2 CP per +1 INT.  +1 to all INT skills is 4;  +1 to all standard PER rolls (Danger Sense is an exception) is 3.  That's 7 points, and basically covers what +5 INT gives, so I'd lean to 3 points for +2 INT.  Even if the costing is at those 2 point increments, like STUN or END...there's no discount for buying less than a full increment.  That's only gonna come into play at 13 and 23 INT;  at 13, it's probably OK to charge the extra bit.  At 23, you already need to invest quite a bit to get to the 22, so it's not that much different.  

 

For PRE:  +1 to all PRE skills is 4.  What's the value of its offensive and defensive aspects?  PRE attacks don't scale that well, and even a moderate level of PRE makes it pretty tough to get much effect.  Granted, this is seriously situationally dependent.  Still:  I don't think it's worth an extra 6 points tho, so I'd suggest the cost of PRE is also 3 CP per +2 PRE.

 

Another point would be that I don't think it's a great idea to make a skill-based character too expensive to build.  If you want that 18 INT, 18 PRE skillmonger, at 2 CP per, you're adding 16 points.  Even my 3 for 2, it's adding 8...just to stay even. This may be a case where...yeah, OK, from a theoretical perspective, INT (at least) is underpriced, but from the perspective of the overall character, it may not be.  

 

First off, +1 to "all skills" is deceptive.  You don't get "all skills", you get "any one skill at a time". The actual stat is far better for complementary skills, as well as giving you all the other advantages of those characteristics.

 

On INT, I would make +1 to all PER a 5 point investment and downgrade for only limited sense groups.  That's about the only item that needs to change.  If you only want the skill rolls, you buy +8 INT, no PER adders and +8 PRE no PRE attacks.

 

Try building that skillmonger as only highly trained - average INT or PRE and he had to work to get good at those skills.

 

Either skill levels should be cheaper (and so should PRE attack bonuses) or the characteristics should be priced higher.  Buying all the benefits of higher characteristics individually should not be markedly more expensive than buying up the characteristics.

[Cloppy Clip]

Have you decided when the conversion of skills from original HERO material is going to be made? There seem to be two ways of doing it, and depending on how you frame it, I can see it opening different possiblities for the new system. As I understand it, the two choices you've floated are:

 

1 - Convert the characteristic to a modifier first, then apply the skill as a modifier on top of that. So an 18 INT raised to a 15- skill would first convert to a +2 INT, with another +2 from the skill for a total of +4, or

 

2 - Calculate the final skill, then convert that to a modifier. So you'd take the 15- skill and convert it to a +4 straight away, crucially leaving the 18 INT in place.

 

Either one works, but I realised when I sat down to reply that my suggestion was assuming one case, and wouldn't work as smoothly in the other. So, if it's not too much trouble, are characteristics staying as-is, or are they being converted to modifiers too?

 

Hope the revisions are going well, and looking forward to hearing more soon!

[greypaladin_01]

Thank you all for your input so far!      With work this week I have not had much time to really focus in on the project, but hoping to do some more over next few days.

 

PRE discussions have been very interesting but I am not sure just how heavily I want to work that system.   But it does help showcase the fact that PRE defenses are not really focused on too much in the rules at the moment.  Personally I feel that this is because at the Champions level PRE Attacks are less designed to be used against other Supers, and more to help a single hero gain a temporary advantage against a group of thugs or VIPER agent types.   Mostly by using the modifiers for Powers, Actions, Skills and the like.   If anything THAT is what could use more attention to clarify and give better guidelines for use.

 

 

[greypaladin_01]

On 5/24/2023 at 5:50 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

The big drive here is to make things visibly less complex and folk like subtraction less than addition (and both better than multiplication or division). 

 

You raise some issues there but it might be that you could replace characteristic numbers (on the character sheet) with modifiers.  So DEX 10 would be 0, Dex 13 or 15 would be +1 etc.  You could then simply have the base skill as [DEX mod].

 

If the base mechanic behind this presentation of the system is that you get a success by rolling 10 or better on a modified dice roll you hide all the calculations from the player.  Peeking behind the curtain you can see it all but the DEX modifier is calculated as DEX/5-2 and written on the sheet as a simple number.  Skills can then utilise that modifier without regularly having to revisit the formula.

 

Personally, I would only have a characteristic on the sheet if it was different from 0, the presumption should be there is no modifier to the skill.

 

Doc

 

 

Exactly, while in its ultimate form it would be nice to overhaul HERO into a smoother interface from the ground up.  I highly doubt that I am the person to undertake that task... let alone nearly solo.   However I feel that the current mechanics of HERO are still very servicable...but are in dire need of a better user interface for the player (and GM at times) to allow focus on the play. 

 

HERO is a toolkit first and game second in many ways.   Even video games that have VERY detailed information for abilities and statistics for the player to view do not have them on the main screens, they are usually in tooltips or you push a button while highlighting the ability to get the FULL details, otherwise it gives you just the most important bits for actual gameplay.

Do we really need to have a 6 line stat block with powers, advantages, limitations, skill levels and the like for a sword.   Or does the player just need to know.   [ Sword:  melee range,  +1 to Hit,  1d6+1 K, STR Min 12 ]   and ideally the adjusted damage would be given to them as well.

Starting especially in 5e and 6e character sheets have become VERY long, often up to 2-3 pages in the published books.  This is alot for a player to take in and translate on the fly.  And most of it is irrelevent to them.   

I am trying to come up with a UI overhaul that can translate the Toolkit HERO gibberish into something more simple language that will allow players to focus on the important details only and PLAY.  They can learn more of the behind the scenes elements over time.

 

 

14 hours ago, Cloppy Clip said:

Have you decided when the conversion of skills from original HERO material is going to be made? There seem to be two ways of doing it, and depending on how you frame it, I can see it opening different possiblities for the new system. As I understand it, the two choices you've floated are:

 

1 - Convert the characteristic to a modifier first, then apply the skill as a modifier on top of that. So an 18 INT raised to a 15- skill would first convert to a +2 INT, with another +2 from the skill for a total of +4, or

 

2 - Calculate the final skill, then convert that to a modifier. So you'd take the 15- skill and convert it to a +4 straight away, crucially leaving the 18 INT in place.

 

Either one works, but I realised when I sat down to reply that my suggestion was assuming one case, and wouldn't work as smoothly in the other. So, if it's not too much trouble, are characteristics staying as-is, or are they being converted to modifiers too?

 

Hope the revisions are going well, and looking forward to hearing more soon!

 

At this moment in time it is very much the Option 2.   The character is created (for learning games probably by GM) or character sheet is taken from one of the published sources and then a smaller character sheet is created translating things over to make it easier for the player to find the things they need quickly.   That being said originally I was looking at doing something like option 1... but i felt it makes conversion of 30+ years of products too involved.  

That being said.... LONG term I would like to make it so that it is easy to build in the system this way too... but that seems way more niche use...  it is more important that the system to fast and simple to use and that any existing character can be converted to it with minimal efforts and a few notes.

[Doc Democracy]

3 minutes ago, greypaladin_01 said:

it is more important that the system to fast and simple to use and that any existing character can be converted to it with minimal efforts and a few notes.

 

Preach!

[greypaladin_01]

The whole reason this started rolling around in my head was when I was teaching HERO to my gf for one of the solo games... and a skill check came up.

 

As i was explaining it the whole thing just seemed very unintuitive and overly clunky with too many steps and inputs interrupting the flow of the events.

 

Look at how HERO handles the skill process:

 

- What is your character skill?     13- in this example

- Step 1: How hard is the task attempted?  GM decides and now has to tell the play to change their base roll anywhere from +/-5 or more.
- Step 2: is the charcter taking extra time or rushing faster than normal?  If so, please tell your player to add or subtract another number based on time chart.
- Step 3: begin to add other bonus modifiers   (character special knowledge, good equipment for the check, good conditions, etc)  GM has to total it all up and tell them to add.
- Step 4: begin to subtract all other bad modifiers:  (see step 3 but things are going against you)
- Step 5: Player assigns any relevant Skill Levels if they wish

 

Even if you are going to do some of the math in your head that is still alot and it also means that the GM has to let the player behind the curtain for the logic of many of modifiers.   While not a 'bad' thing... it can kill the tension of the moment and drain excitement from events.

 

Instead I am trying something more simple.  

Player has skill roll of +2 (in current reworking)

There are a few things going for them so GM says to add +2  can say why then just tell them that it is a Hard task  (GM decides it is DC 12, does not have to tell the player... just giving them the general category is enough.)    If there are things that would penalize the character... that just raises the difficultly level.   They don't need to do extra math.

"The lock would normally only be of Average difficulty for you.. but your lockpicks were confiscated, making this a Hard tasks now"

...obviously every GM has their own style, you don't have to use game mechanic terms,  this is just for illustration purpose.  The only thing that matters is the player understands that circumstances against htem are making it harder.... giving them a chance to rethink actions or search for ways to negate the issues.  

 

Hopefully this helps illustrate the goals better...  I probably should not be posting when its way past bedtime.