Is there a rule for similar skills?

[DentArthurDent]

Is there a rule for similar skills?

For example: Epah has Electronics at 14-. Epah may use Bugging and Security Systems at 8-.

 

I played 1E and 3E for years and 6E a bit, but we had so many GMs and so many house rules, it often all runs together.

 

 

[Grailknight]

You're in GM option territory here. I've let the general skill be used at -3 base and only 1/2 value for pluses if you're using the general skill but lack the specific skill. If you have the specific skill but lack the general, you can use at -3 but don't get pluses. It's worked for me but YMMV.

[Chris Goodwin]

At the table I've heard many quick GM calls that have you roll against a similar skill at a small penalty, but nothing that would reach a level where it would need to be standardized.  If you want a model for how you might do it, GURPS' skill system sounds like what you might be looking for, or the HERO System language similarity charts might work as well.  I'm not saying use GURPS instead of Hero, but their skill system is at least not incompatible with ours. 

[Lord Liaden]

Could you be thinking of Complementary Skills? That's when you can apply two or more Skills to a task that a GM rules are related to that task. The GM rules which Skill is the primary one for the task; for every 2 points you make your roll on your Complementary Skill by, you can add +1 to the roll for success for your primary Skill.

 

To use your example, if you were trying to bypass an electronic lock, the GM may rule that you can use your Security Systems roll as Complementary to Electronics. Note that an 8- Familiarity in a Skill can't be improved by any means, so in your case nothing would be Complementary to your Security Systems or Bugging; but a Familiarity may be Complementary to a Skill for which you have paid full cost.

[Sean Waters]

A lot of game systems classify some skills as something any one can have a go at - anyone can use Climbing, for example, they just may not be very good at it - but other things you can't do without being trained to do them (or possibly having someone who is talk you through) - like KS: Calculus or, arguably, Electronics.

 

Skills in hero have always felt a bit underdeveloped.  I do not think there is a rule that does exactly what you are after, but the aim is to keep the game flowing and not to make players regret their skill picks, so I'd say that if someone who is expert in Electronics wants to search for bugs in a room, they should have a reasonable chance of doing that.  I'd impose a penalty that, probably, reflects how I feel about them finding a bug.  Maybe -2 or -3 on their Electronics roll - there's clearly a connection between the skills and it does not feel unreasonable or game breaking.  I might even decided it is an opposed roll, which means whoever planted it could have done badly (or well) on their roll.

 

One skill type that Hero does particularly well is Languages, with the related languages tree.  It would be nice to see that idea used for skills more broadly.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

Just because you are an electrician does not mean you know how to plant bugs or disable security systems.  While an electrician probably can figure out how to turn off the security camera, doing so is likely to trigger an alarm thereby alerting the people monitoring the system which is the opposite of a successful security system check.

 

Now someone trained in both electronics and security systems is going to be better at disabling an electronic based system than someone who is only trained in security systems.  But that is what the complementary skill system is for.  This is the best way to build a highly skilled character.  Most players don’t bother with this and rarely purchase background and supporting skills.   

 

The skill system in Hero is not so much underdeveloped as underutilized.  Skills are fairly cheap, but most players purchase just the base skill and boost that up instead of using complementary skills and skill levels.   
 

[Gauntlet]

On 7/27/2024 at 5:17 AM, Sean Waters said:

Skills in hero have always felt a bit underdeveloped.  I do not think there is a rule that does exactly what you are after, but the aim is to keep the game flowing and not to make players regret their skill picks, so I'd say that if someone who is expert in Electronics wants to search for bugs in a room, they should have a reasonable chance of doing that.  I'd impose a penalty that, probably, reflects how I feel about them finding a bug.  Maybe -2 or -3 on their Electronics roll - there's clearly a connection between the skills and it does not feel unreasonable or game breaking.  I might even decide it is an opposed roll, which means whoever planted it could have done badly (or well) on their roll.

 

Not completely sure on this one. I actually find some of those items make the game rather slow and too data required. I have had some players (whom I will not name) can take several minutes with each roll as they are making all the complementary rolls. Many times can drive me nuts. Even with languages, trying to figure out what bonus you get because you speak a similar language can be rather time consuming. Depending on the campaign, sometimes you just need to leave reality out of the picture.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Not completely sure on this one. I actually find some of those items make the game rather slow and too data required. I have had some players (whom I will not name) can take several minutes with each roll as they are making all the complementary rolls. Many times can drive me nuts. Even with languages, trying to figure out what bonus you get because you speak a similar language can be rather time consuming. Depending on the campaign, sometimes you just need to leave reality out of the picture.

 

It shouldn't.  I have to question whether you're letting too many, barely tangential, skills apply as complementary.  

 

With languages, it should be even simpler.  How many overlaps can one have?  I also have to wonder if you're going overboard with the languages being used.  The full set, in HD, is absurd.  There's over 600...at least 300 of which are basically nit-picky and useless, and in fact are far more of a PITA than anything, as they *massively* bloat the language list.  I'm NOT!!! being racist here, but unless the campaign is *narrowly* focused, how many Native American languages does one need?  This is from my re-structured Languages file:

<LanguageFamily family="Algonquian-Wakashan" group="Algonquin,Arapaho,Bella Bella,Bella Coola,Blackfoot,Cheyenne,Chimakum,Clallam,Coeur d'Alene,Colville,Cree,Delaware,Flathead,Fox,Illinois,Kickapoo,Kitamat,Kwakiutl,Makah,Miami,Micmac,Mohegan,Mohican,Narraganset,Nisqualli,Nitinat,Nootka,Ojibwa (Chippewa),Ottawa,Pend d'Oreille,Penobscot,Pequot,Puyallup,Sac (Sauk),Shawnee,Shuswap,Spokan,Tillamook,Yurok" />
 

and 

 

<LanguageFamily family="Hokan-Siouan" group="Alabama,Arikara,Assinboin,Caddo,Catawba,Cayuga,Cherokee,Chickasaw,Choctaw,Cocopa,Comecrudan,Creek,Crow,Dakota,Hidatsa,Huron (Wyandot),Iowa,Jicaque,Kamia,Maricopa,Mohave,Mohawk,Muskogee,Omaha,Oneida,Onondaga,Osage,Pawnee,Pomo,Seminole,Seneca,Seri,Shasta,Sioux (Dakota),Tuscarora,Washo,Wichita,Winnebago,Yana,Yavapai,Yuchi,Yuma" />

 

Another huge group:  

 

<LanguageFamily family="Uralic-Altaic" group="Altai,Azerbaijani,Balkar,Bashkir,Buryat,Cheremis (Mari),Chuvash,Estonian,Even (Lamut),Evenki (Tungus),Finnish (Suomi),Hungarian (Magyar),Kalmyk (Kalmuck),Kara-Kalpak,Karachai,Karelian,Kazakh,Kazar,Khakass,Kirghiz,Komi,Kumyk,Lappish,Manchu,Mongolian (Khalkha),Mordvin,Nanai (Gold),Noghay (Nogai),Ostyak (Khanty),Permian,Salar,Samoyed,Sibo,Tatar,Turkish,Turkoman (Turkmen),Tuvinian,Udmurt (Votyak),Ulgur,Uzbek,Vogul (Mansi),Yakut" />
 

It's a game, it isn't a Ph.D. linguistics simulation.

 

Part of me is also wondering why the person has so many languages...because it feels like he's trying to exploit the rules.  

 

[Gauntlet]

One easy way to do it is to just give a +1 to +3 based on how many other skills and how close they are. And yes I have had players use over half their total points on science skills. ;D

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

One easy way to do it is to just give a +1 to +3 based on how many other skills and how close they are. And yes I have had players use over half their total points on science skills. ;D

 

That suggests excessive, overly narrow definitions on the sciences...especially if Scientist is being taken, as it always should be when you have 3 or more.  It also feels like a deliberate attempt to abuse the complementary skills rules to me...albeit, likely, not cost-effective.  (And for healer types...I buy Anatomy and Physiology all the time;  Toxicology and Pathology for background if I'm also buying a separate power to treat diseases/poisons, which I treat separately from wounds/injury.  It's NOT for overlap purposes.)

 

But then, I also buy 23 INT a *lot*...or 18 at least, at lower point totals.

[Sean Waters]

It's a game.

 

If someone wants to decipher a message written in runes on and ancient temple wall, whether they can or not really depends on whether they are supposed to i.e. whether it is important to the plot.  A GM would have to be an idiot to leave an important clue that no one in the party can understand or somehow decode and, if it is not a clue, just window dressing, don't encourage the players who are convinced it is a clue: just tell them they have no idea or that it is going to take a long while or that it just seems to be the world's earliest known graffiti if, somehow, the character has taken LS: Nordic Runes with literacy.

 

I think getting too precious about skills can be unhelpful.  If you decide that your character is a world renowned expert on microbiology and gene therapies, and all the fields associated with that, because you're world renowned so probably haven't just picked up PS: Biologist, either that's going to be an important part of the scenario and campaign or you've wasted 10 or 15 points.  If it is never going to come up, let's just say you're a world renowned expert.  Job done.

 

The other side of the coin is that players sometimes expect that, if they invest in a whole bunch of skills, they're entitled to have the GM work that in to the scenario.  My take is that the GM has enough to do already.

 

This should be pre-start/session zero stuff.  If you tell the GM that you want your character to be an expert surgeon and the GM tells you that's not something that will matter in the game, take the hint.  Dr Strange, right?  You get that bit right at the start where he does some astonishing diagnosis (once Christine flags up the problem) and surgery to set up his background and his arrogance and emotional distance but then it's never mentioned again, other than everyone calling him 'Doctor'.

 

You still want your character to be an expert surgeon, fine, but it's just don't spend a whole load of points on all the related fields.  In game all it is going to be, at most, is a Perk that will get you a bit of respect in some circles or a good reason to have certain Contacts.

 

Even if the game is set in a hospital and there will be opportunities to do a spot of life saving surgery, that is unlikely to be a major component of the game or much fun for the other players watching you and your Conversation skill is probably going to see a lot more use and actually move the game forward.

 

The GM probably doesn't have a huge amount of skill in surgery or genetics or any other field of science and neither do you and all you're doing is rolling dice.  Dr Strange would be a very different film if he'd rolled an 18 at the start there and then there's a cut scene (pun intended) where he's explaining to the bereaved family that he rolled badly and accidentally cut out a bit of brain that he shouldn't have.

 

If the PC has Electronics and wants to look for bugs or bypass an electronic lock, let them try.  They'll probably be a bit better at it than someone who has no training in Electronics.  They can McGuyver a scanner from the bedside radio and a bent coat hanger.

 

Eyeball it.  Keep the game flowing.  I love complex and rich rule systems and I will bang on about tweaking everything to make it perfect all the live-long day but, at the sharp end, if they are getting in the way of everyone enjoying the game or slowing things down too much, they're bad.

 

 

[DentArthurDent]

On 7/24/2024 at 9:54 AM, Grailknight said:

You're in GM option territory here. I've let the general skill be used at -3 base and only 1/2 value for pluses if you're using the general skill but lack the specific skill. If you have the specific skill but lack the general, you can use at -3 but don't get pluses. It's worked for me but YMMV.

I’m not familiar with General and Specific Skills. Can you point me toward a particular rule book?

[Grailknight]

It's not really specified. To me, general is a broad category while specific would be other specialized skills that are derived from it. In the example used Electronics would be the general skill while Bugging and Security Skills would be the specific skill. 

[Tom Cowan]

Breaking Bad

 

Chemical Manufacturing

-Drug Manufacturing

--Methamphetamine Manufacturing

 

 

 

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, DentArthurDent said:

I’m not familiar with General and Specific Skills. Can you point me toward a particular rule book?

 

Wouldn't a Specific Skill be one that is in the book, like Acrobatics or Conversation, while a General Skill would be a Knowledge Skill, or a Science Skill, or the like?

[Sean Waters]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Wouldn't a Specific Skill be one that is in the book, like Acrobatics or Conversation, while a General Skill would be a Knowledge Skill, or a Science Skill, or the like?

 

Hmm. They changed that too, apparently for the sake of it. KS and PS type stuff is no longer a General Skill. In 6E it's a Background Skill.

 

Specific skill is not a rules term, but Gauntlet speaks truth as to the gist.

[unclevlad]

10 hours ago, Grailknight said:

It's not really specified. To me, general is a broad category while specific would be other specialized skills that are derived from it. In the example used Electronics would be the general skill while Bugging and Security Skills would be the specific skill. 

 

Not as written.  The skills are in fundamentally different domains.  From 6E:

 

Electronics

Quote

This Intellect Skill allows a character to identify, understand, build, repair, and rewire electronic devices.

 

Bugging

Quote

A character with this Intellect Skill can plant and operate listening, visual, or other sensing devices (“bugs”) and wiretaps properly. He can also “sweep” (search physically or with detectors) for bugs and wiretaps. He can follow a properly bugged vehicle with a successful Bugging roll and a tracking device (though he may need Shadowing to keep the target from perceiving him).

 

Security Systems

 

Quote

A character with this Intellect Skill can locate, recognize, evade, and build various types of alarms and traps. These alarms and traps include such things as deadfalls, electric eyes, motion detectors, poison needle traps, retina scanners, voiceprint analyzers, security cameras, trapdoors, tripwires, and pressure plates.

 

The only overlap would be in building a bug, trap, detector, etc.  Both bugging and security systems are far more about deploying them effectively, or spotting those that are in place...and that has nothing to do with Electronics.

 

Note that Security Systems says *nothing* about locks...because that's Lockpicking.  So if there's an alarm connected to an electronic lock, IMO there's 2 *separate* rolls...Security Systems first, then Lockpicking.  And they're not complementary.  The SS roll's to identify the alarm (and how to avoid setting it off), then the Lockpicking to bypass the lock.

 

There are NO cases, IMO, pre-defined skills that would count as "general" and "specific" in this sense.  

 

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Hmm. They changed that too, apparently for the sake of it. KS and PS type stuff is no longer a General Skill. In 6E it's a Background Skill.

 

Changed, when?  Because 5E uses Background Skills too.  

 

"General Skill" refers to a background skill that is NOT tied to any specific Characteristic.  That's also the case in 5E, not just 6E.  Buying a background skill as a general skill costs 2 points for the 11-, rather than 3 for one based on a characteristic.

 

There can be cases, generally with KS or SS, where you might buy a broad skill and a narrower skill in the same line.  History, and Military History.  Chemistry and Biochemistry.  It could happen with PS too;  that feels somewhat less common to me, but not out of line.  If the rolls are the same?  I still wouldn't use complementary, I'd say one roll for both, and you get the info that applies from both domains.  Invasion of D-Day?  History says it was the launching point by the Allies to establish a beachhead to take back Europe from Nazi Germany.  Military history gives the forces, the landing beaches, the moves made by the Allies to consolidate the breaches made in the German lines along the coast.  (All of which might also be available from a History roll that's made by...take your pick of number.)  If the rolls are different...if you make 1 but not the other, then you get the info from the domain where you made the roll.

[DentArthurDent]

While flipping through “Espionage!” I found a list of General Skills.
But the skills aren’t really broader categories of skills. They just have a base value of 11-, instead of being stat-based.
 

The General Skills are: Demolitions, Electronics, Forensic Medicine, Forgery, Gambling, Gunsmith, Lip Reading, Mechanics, Mimicry, Shadowing, Survival Skill, and Ventriloquism.

[Chris Goodwin]

11 hours ago, DentArthurDent said:

The General Skills are: Demolitions, Electronics, Forensic Medicine, Forgery, Gambling, Gunsmith, Lip Reading, Mechanics, Mimicry, Shadowing, Survival Skill, and Ventriloquism.

Yep.  Those skills were all made stat-based in either 4th or 5th edition. 

 

A few skills had higher costs for the base as well. Deduction, Inventor, Stealth, (in FH) Magic Skill and Spell Research, what we're now calling Power Skill (which used to be Magic Skill, Gadgeteering, and the VPP control skill), were all 5 points for the base stat roll and 2 points per +1.  In first-gen Champions, Acrobatics was 10 points but included Breakfall and IIRC an "Acrobatic Dodge", and also wasn't part of the standalone games (except, apparently, Espionage).

 

(Trivia: Hero Designer has a "hidden" Characteristic called General, which is set at 10, and the Background (AK, CK, KS, PS, SS) are all based on this.  I think it's possible to alter or extend the base character template in HD to increase this, but that's beyond the scope of this topic).

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

(Trivia: Hero Designer has a "hidden" Characteristic called General, which is set at 10, and the Background (AK, CK, KS, PS, SS) are all based on this.  I think it's possible to alter or extend the base character template in HD to increase this, but that's beyond the scope of this topic).

 

And what the really neat stuff is the errors you get when you get into the Java code and try to change that.

[unclevlad]

9 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

And what the really neat stuff is the errors you get when you get into the Java code and try to change that.

 

Ohhhh...that could get nasty, couldn't it.  getCharacteristics() fetches an ArrayList, and GENERAL is index 0.  And a whole lot of this is very, very awkwardly defined...some is hardcoded by number, in other places there's Java constants.  Yeah, it'd be easy to blow this up and get Index Out of Bounds, or posslbly NPEs.  It would be nice if the code used smarter data structures, but...that's one of the lesser code issues.  I have trimmed off some of the fat by deleting all the junk for custom characteristics, so it can be done, but those are at the end of the list.  
 

It *looks like* it can be changed in the template.  No, there's no listing for a GENERAL characteristic in the Characteristics section...because those are subject to mods.  However, on line 2 of Main6E.hdt, there's this:

 

    <MAINAPP BACKGROUND_TAB="Yes" HEIGHT="Yes" WEIGHT="Yes" NCM_COST_MULTIPLIER="2" GENERAL_LEVEL="10">

 

I believe this sets the stat level for GENERAL, but tracing this in the code is a hideous mess...GENERAL_LEVEL is used to set generalLevel but I'm not entirely sure where *that* gets used, if anywhere.  Cuz it's a private variable in Template.  

[Gauntlet]

I think one of the big reason's they call it a coding language is because you can many times basically say the same thing various different ways.

 

And add the fact that most of my coding experience comes from a book...