Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

[Black Rose]

I don't know how many of these I will actually do, since I'm pretty cool with almost all of the HERO system... except skills. Oh, don't get me wrong, it covers a broad range of needs quite admirably, and I think Knowledge, Professional, and Science Skills - and the attendant Area, Culture, and Trivia (mine own invention) Skills - are one of the most elegant designs I've ever come across, but I do have one little quibble. And it's a quibble that I've seen done better elsewhere - which bugs the crap out of me, frankly, since, IMO, HERO should be doing everything better. Okay, enough pussyfooting.

 

I don't like the quick jump from 8- to 11- (or 12- if you know what you're doing with your points); a jump from 25.9% to 62.5% (or 74.1%). There's no granularity, just a quick jump from a one in four shot to a two in three (or three in four). And with no skill levels adding to Familiarities, there's really no way to make a mild lift on your own.

 

I wish that you could add Skill Levels to Cramming. I'd be willing to buy Skill Levels that only added to Cramming, if I could do it. And I know I can do it, in my own games at least; I mean it makes no sense to me that you can't in general. Wait, I take that back; I do see the desire to prevent the PC from studying for several hours and becoming a Nobel prize-winning whatever, but let's be honest, any number of things left lying around in FREd could blow your campaign to flinders if you're not careful.

 

This last one is not so much a beef with HERO as it is a wistful kudos to another system; JAGS, to be specific. The skill system in JAGS is two layered; one is the Skill Level (the 3d6 roll we all know and love) and the Expertise Level (one to four, covering beginner to master). How does this work? Well, in all fairness, I should just link you and say, "Go to JAGS Rules, then to Basic Book 2, then to page 2 and read the bit about Level of Expertise, but I'll try to summarise. Basic difficulties are assumed to be "Average"; i.e., Level 2. If you are a Beginner, you get a -3 to any Average roll, a -6 to any Expert roll, and a -9 to any Master roll. If you are Average, you basically get +3 to your roll, almost always to only cover penalties; Expert and Master each get another +3, cumulative. Now, I know what you're thinking; "Couldn't you just do this with Skill Levels, or -yawn- having the skills at a high enough level?" Well, you could, but here's the thing; it is possible, using this skill system, to be both successful (the skill roll) and not all that great at it (the expertise level). Or vice versa. You get the picture. The Expertise Level covers your skill, where the skill roll covers your success rate. I know that just made little to no sense (blame lack of sleep; I plan to ), but if you take a look at it, it makes a rather lovely kind of sense. Then again, I have a thing for elegant solutions.

 

So. I have thrown down the gauntlet. Does anyone have anything to add?

[drnuncheon]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Well, let's look at whether the added complexity actually grants us anything. Let's say we've got a lock to pick.

 

Option 1 uses your suggested system, Option 2 uses stock HERO. The lock is difficult, so the picker takes a -3 to his roll.

 

1: "I've got a 12- in lockpicking, but I'm an Expert-level lockpicker, so I can ignore the -3, giving me a 12-."

 

2: "I've got a 15- in lockpicking, so I wind up with a 12-."

 

Hmm.

 

it is possible, using this skill system, to be both successful (the skill roll) and not all that great at it (the expertise level). Or vice versa.

 

I don't think I'm seeing the difference here, honestly - even in your JAGS system, a higher skill level has the same effect as a higher level of mastery. The only thing that you get that you couldn't with HERO is (say) a Master locksmith who is only capable of opening easy locks on a 12-, but he can open the toughest locks on a 12- as well. That doesn't make much sense to me, and you could do it with limited skill levels if you really wanted such an effect.

 

I think it's added complexity without added value.

 

J

[Sociotard]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

All I can say is "How long before Steve puts out The Ultimate Skill?" Skills really are underused in many campaigns, and this would help counter that.

[Steve Long]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

As I've mentioned a couple of times in chats and other threads, I sort of plink away at The Ultimate Skill as time allows. Unfortunately, time hasn't allowed much plinking for the past couple months, since the main publication schedule this year is 50% heavier than last year. And lately I've been spending my "plinking" time getting a head start on 5ER or other projects moreso than working on TUSk.

 

But have no fear -- I haven't forgotten my beloved Skills book! I'll be getting back to it as time and interest allow. If necessary, sooner or later we'll put it on the production schedule so I can allot full working time to it.

[Christougher]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Well, my thought on skills is fired by the 1 point 8 or less familiarities, while an emergy attempt at something without a skill is often given the same 8 or less roll, for free. The lack of a step between an 8 or less familiarity and the full skill for three points, usually 12 or 13 or less.

 

I haven't implemented it, but I'm considering making the free/everyman rolls a 7 or less, the 1 point familiarity as a 9 or less (Hmm, is it a coincidence this is equal to 9 + CHA/5?), and 2 points with any skill as an 11 or less.

 

A much more radical revision would be to convert all the "named" skills to something like a Professional Skill or Knowledge Skill, possibly inventing some sort of Physical or Performance Skill, but that clashes with PS'es.

[Pegasus]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Well, my thought on skills is fired by the 1 point 8 or less familiarities, while an emergy attempt at something without a skill is often given the same 8 or less roll, for free. The lack of a step between an 8 or less familiarity and the full skill for three points, usually 12 or 13 or less.

 

I haven't implemented it, but I'm considering making the free/everyman rolls a 7 or less, the 1 point familiarity as a 9 or less (Hmm, is it a coincidence this is equal to 9 + CHA/5?), and 2 points with any skill as an 11 or less.

 

There are some good ideas in this thread. I agree with eliminating the drastic jump, and giving familiarity an advantage over emergency. I've been thinking about the above system myself, and I might just go ahead and implement it. It's an elegant solution that separates the emergency roll from the familiarity nicely, while reducing that drastic jump.

 

0: Emergency 7- *

1: Familiarity 9-

2: Basic Knowledge 11-

3: Trained Skill (INT Roll)

 

Yeah, I like this idea. Cramming would then result in 9- roll, too, making it a tad more useful, but none of this is overwhelming.

 

 

*(still must be an applicable skill. No emergency rolls in quantum physics)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

I generally allow 5 point "group" levels to be used with appropriate 8- Familiarities, and 10 point overall levels witn all 8-, including Cramming.

 

I do agree that there needs to be some sort of rule that allows skills between 8- and 11- that doesn't involve having Characteristics below 10.

 

I would also like to see some sort of alternate "default skill" system instead of Everyman skills and Familiarities. I see no reason why my flat footed 10 DEX thug should be just as good at Acrobatics as your 43 DEX speedster if all we each pay is 1 point for a Familarity.

[pinecone]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

I do the same thing with levels Dust Raven does. I agree that have Fams of 9 rather than 8 is elegant and workable. The unerlying assumption is clean...Hmmm a fam is 9 or less, a full skill adds in the relevant stat...that makes sense......It seems to me that making skills important is a style thing, but I'd bet that a big book o'skills would help more people bring skills to the forefront....I'd also like to see PSLs cleaned up as well...guess I've got some reading to do.....

[MadWand]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

One thing I think the D20 system does better than ther HERO system is in standardizing the skill and combat system. Everything is the same: roll a d20, add a modifier, check to see if you overcame a difficulty. I think the HERO system could easily modified to work the same way. Attack rolls are 3d6+OCV, which must defeat 11+opponents DCV. Skill rolls should be 3d6+Stat bonus+skill bonuses, which must overcome a GM-set difficulty. You could do familiarities multiple ways, or even dispense with the concept altogether: You no longer buy "skills" at all, just skill levels that add to your roll. Certain skills would be "trained skills only", which can only be attempted with at least 1 (or perhaps sometimes more) skill levels in a certain skill. Other skills can be attempted with a base roll of 3d6+stat bonus.

Perhaps a 1 point familiarity would allow a character to attempt 3d6+stat bonus rolls for trained skills, without buying skill levels for that skill. A character could later spend 1 more point to turn the familiarity into a normal +1 skill level. Familiarities would be unnecessesary for skills that may be untrained normally.

This system also removes the need for most "everyman" skills quite nicely.

 

Tell me what you think. Workable?

[acowie]

Aiming high with 3d6

 

I suspect that if HERO was just coming out now it would use a 3d6+OCV vs 10 +DCV target - several groups already do. It's really easy and doesn't require any tweaking.

To get exact mathematical equivalence in skill rolls is a bit clunky. We have used an easy target of 10, standard of 12 and hard of 14, with a 3pt skill giving you a +of STAT/5 (ie DEX 18 gives you a +4 to DEX rolls, or a 3pt Acrobatics). For exact equivalence 2 pt skills (11-) give you +2, and 1 pt familiarity should give you a -1, but we say 0.

Once it's up and running though, it just seems much smoother, exactly like when d20 went 3rd edition. I've even had d20 junkies previously freaked by HERO understanding the system much more easily.

The problem is what you do with all the old characters available.

[Mentor]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

There are some good ideas in this thread. I agree with eliminating the drastic jump, and giving familiarity an advantage over emergency. I've been thinking about the above system myself, and I might just go ahead and implement it. It's an elegant solution that separates the emergency roll from the familiarity nicely, while reducing that drastic jump.

 

0: Emergency 7- *

1: Familiarity 9-

2: Basic Knowledge 11-

3: Trained Skill (INT Roll)

 

Yeah, I like this idea. Cramming would then result in 9- roll, too, making it a tad more useful, but none of this is overwhelming.

 

 

*(still must be an applicable skill. No emergency rolls in quantum physics)

Very nice. While I am not really looking to change anything yet in our campaign, which is very skill intensive, there is an elegant logic to your suggestion.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

There are some good ideas in this thread. I agree with eliminating the drastic jump, and giving familiarity an advantage over emergency. I've been thinking about the above system myself, and I might just go ahead and implement it. It's an elegant solution that separates the emergency roll from the familiarity nicely, while reducing that drastic jump.

 

0: Emergency 7- *

1: Familiarity 9-

2: Basic Knowledge 11-

3: Trained Skill (INT Roll)

 

Yeah, I like this idea. Cramming would then result in 9- roll, too, making it a tad more useful, but none of this is overwhelming.

 

 

*(still must be an applicable skill. No emergency rolls in quantum physics)

I like this idea, but I would use different numbers:

 

0 Emergency: 6-

1 Familiarity: 8-

2 Basic Skill: 10-

3 Trained: (CHAR Roll)

 

This gives a base 50% probability of success for a 2 pt. Basic Skill and 3 points now provides the standard relevant CHARACTERISTIC roll.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

I like this idea, but I would use different numbers:

 

0 Emergency: 6-

1 Familiarity: 8-

2 Basic Skill: 10-

3 Trained: (CHAR Roll)

 

This gives a base 50% probability of success for a 2 pt. Basic Skill and 3 points now provides the standard relevant CHARACTERISTIC roll.

 

 

I like this idea better, as well, since there are times when [9+(CHAR/5)] = 11. I'd hate to see people buying the "2 pt" version rather than the "3 pt" version to get the same results.

[AlHazred]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Another thing you might want to consider is "Cascade Skills." This is the idea (used in several other game systems) where a "Skill" is not the ability to do one single thing; rather, each Skill covers several related abilities. For instance, in DragonQuest, the Thief Skill allowed you to Open Locks, Find Traps, Disarm Traps, etc.

 

To apply this idea to the ones floating around here, perhaps you could define "Cascade Packages" for your campaign; a 1-point (or 3-point, or 5-point, or whatever) investment nets you a 7- (or 8-, or 6-, or whatever) roll with a group of related abilities. You could have the Thief Cascade with Security Systems, Lockpicking, Eavesdropping, and so on. Then, when a character wants to be better at one particular thing, he pays points towards improving it. This way, you maintain the exclusivity of people who invest in skills (i.e., they can try things other, less skill-intensive, characters can't) but still maintain your granularity.

 

In this system, there are no Everyman Skills, per se. You get a Cultural Cascade with the relevant Everyman Skills in it.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

My biggie would be some way of adjudicating the difference of scale with the KS/PS/SS series in particular. Personally I apply a -2 penalty for each "step" of difference, and try to limit it to 4 steps per skill. I've toyed with making the first step "up" only -1.

 

To me, there's something wrong when KS: Superhuman World and KS: Champions (the group) cost the same -- and under the default rules KS:SW will tell you everything KS:C would and more, and it's KS:C that is restricted in use. Either the costs should be different, or KS:SW should be penalized if a more specific KS would be appropriate.

 

Personally I've had success with the second model -- although it's sometimes difficult to break the skill into steps when I'm not terribly familiar with the skill myself. The following is my breakdown for KS:SW as an example.

 

• Superhuman World
  
• By region (America, Eurasia, etc) OR by broad affiliation (UNTIL, PRIMUS, Teragen, etc.)
  
• By team (Champions, Protectors, CLOWN, Ultimates, etc)
  
• By individual (Defender, Ironclad, Binder, etc)
  

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

My biggie would be some way of adjudicating the difference of scale with the KS/PS/SS series in particular. Personally I apply a -2 penalty for each "step" of difference, and try to limit it to 4 steps per skill. I've toyed with making the first step "up" only -1.

 

To me, there's something wrong when KS: Superhuman World and KS: Champions (the group) cost the same -- and under the default rules KS:SW will tell you everything KS:C would and more, and it's KS:C that is restricted in use. Either the costs should be different, or KS:SW should be penalized if a more specific KS would be appropriate.

 

I've seen most often and use the second model. That a broad KS can receive penalties for specific things and a more specialized KS provides a 8- roll for more general knowledge.

[zornwil]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Oh crap I hate this new mouse at work, if I am not careful it forces the page back or forward.

 

Anyway, as I tried to say - I like Trebuchet's gradation the best as it preserves the 1 and 3 point usefulness while giving the 2 point a good grounding as it does not allow for CHAR addition.

 

Then again I could see spending 2 points for an 8/less that then allows the CHAR to add. Basically it's 1 point less for 3 less on the die roll, which is also workable and pretty fairly costed, just slightly less efficient to get a decent skill roll. This way you have:

1 = 8/less (personally I could deal with 9/less), no CHAR modifier, skill cannot be bought up

2 = 8/less with CHAR modifier, skill cannot be bought up

3 = 11/less with CHAR modifier

 

On a pragmatic note, though, it's a bit of a pain to impose on HD and inconsistent enough to be annoying. Perhaps we should make it more consistent - something like:

1 point to possess skill at base 11/less - but that's IT

1 point to allow skill to be added to by CHAR - requires prior level, so now it's 2 points for 11/less+CHAR but NO other additions

1 point to allow skill to be added to by skill additions, including buying up skill at 2/1 point; now we have a normal skill as we do today

 

This makes it a tad more generic and easier to construct. I kind of like it and may consider using it even as I think about it.

 

TheEmerged has a great point - I imagine it would get covered in the Ultimate book but I think the core rules should estabilsh a basic framework with the penalty levels.

 

More later, have to run.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

My two cents: Two ways to smooth out the jump between the 8- Familiarity and the 11- (or 9+CHA/5) skill:

 

1. (Completely within the rules) Even 8- Familiarities can get bonuses for easy situations or taking extra time. If I have only 8- with Math, I might still solve the problem if you give me a week.

 

2. (Rule modification) Change Familiarity from a flat 8- to 7+CHA/10 or less. That way, the relevent stat is still important, but doesn't provide the same bonus that it would if you had the full skill. A "normal" with 10's would still have an 8-, but a 40 DEX guy with a familiarity with Acrobatics, would get 7+40/10= 11 or less. If he bought the full skill, he'd have 9+40/5= 17 or less.

 

The other ways that have been brought up on this thread are also good.

 

And as it says in FREd, background skills all cost the same because more specific ones provide much more detail than general ones. SC: Zoology will give you some good information about Insectology, but SC: Insectology will give you lost more, but very little about Ornithology (though you might get some info about birds that eat insects). Likewise KS: The Champions will give you intimate details about those five people and their history as a group, while KS: The Superhuman World, will give only general info about superhumans, the Champions included.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

The other ways that have been brought up on this thread are also good.

I like this idea just a little better than the others based mainly on the fact that it requires the least amount of modifications to existing rules to get a lot of the same effects.

 

The fact that it gives a bonus to characters with a high stat relevant to the skill bears watching for abuse though.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Thank you.

 

The only real problem I have with skills in HERO is Languages. I don't like the way they are priced. FREd says that an 11- roll with a PS is enough to competently hold a job in that skill. And that's only 2 points. Therefore I say that 2 points should be enough to be a competent user of the language. I'd like languages to have the same structure as other skills, i.e., give them a roll 11-, or 9+INT/5. For a 1 point familarity with the language, your vocabulary is somewhat limited: it will be obvious that you aren't a native speaker, you might not understand various figures of speech or wordplay, nor will you be able to fully appreciate great literature written in the language, but you can negotiate a transaction and ask where the restrooms are, and generally get your point across. For 2 points, you can be a fully competent, fluent speaker of the language, you understand idioms and most plays on words, but you aren't a master writer, poet, or wordsmith in the language. A truly great writer/poet/author in the language will have a much higher roll. If Einstein has a SC: Physics of 18-, then Shakespeare has Language: English of 18-. Those numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

 

Oh, and literacy is free or not depending on genre, setting, and character conception.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Thank you.

 

The only real problem I have with skills in HERO is Languages. I don't like the way they are priced. FREd says that an 11- roll with a PS is enough to competently hold a job in that skill. And that's only 2 points. Therefore I say that 2 points should be enough to be a competent user of the language. I'd like languages to have the same structure as other skills, i.e., give them a roll 11-, or 9+INT/5. For a 1 point familarity with the language, your vocabulary is somewhat limited: it will be obvious that you aren't a native speaker, you might not understand various figures of speech or wordplay, nor will you be able to fully appreciate great literature written in the language, but you can negotiate a transaction and ask where the restrooms are, and generally get your point across. For 2 points, you can be a fully competent, fluent speaker of the language, you understand idioms and most plays on words, but you aren't a master writer, poet, or wordsmith in the language. A truly great writer/poet/author in the language will have a much higher roll. If Einstein has a SC: Physics of 18-, then Shakespeare has Language: English of 18-. Those numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

 

Oh, and literacy is free or not depending on genre, setting, and character conception.

I would argue that William Shakespeare to a large extent helped define English as a modern language and he clearly would have not only Idiomatic English speech but KS: English at a high level. I think the disparity in costs is based on languages' overall usefulness within most campaigns. It's tremendously useful to be idiomatic in another language. How often will SS: Quantum Physics 14- be handy in most games? (Our current superteam has so many languages most of us converse in Norwegian instead of English even though we're an international team.)

 

That having been said, I certainly wouldn't object to a 1: Basic, 2: Fluent, 3: Idiomatic system for languages to bring them into line with other skills. The possible downside to this is the elimination or reduction of one of my favorite HERO features, the Language Similarity Chart.

[zornwil]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

Thank you.

 

The only real problem I have with skills in HERO is Languages. I don't like the way they are priced. FREd says that an 11- roll with a PS is enough to competently hold a job in that skill. And that's only 2 points. Therefore I say that 2 points should be enough to be a competent user of the language. I'd like languages to have the same structure as other skills, i.e., give them a roll 11-, or 9+INT/5. For a 1 point familarity with the language, your vocabulary is somewhat limited: it will be obvious that you aren't a native speaker, you might not understand various figures of speech or wordplay, nor will you be able to fully appreciate great literature written in the language, but you can negotiate a transaction and ask where the restrooms are, and generally get your point across. For 2 points, you can be a fully competent, fluent speaker of the language, you understand idioms and most plays on words, but you aren't a master writer, poet, or wordsmith in the language. A truly great writer/poet/author in the language will have a much higher roll. If Einstein has a SC: Physics of 18-, then Shakespeare has Language: English of 18-. Those numbers might not be exact, but you get the idea.

 

Oh, and literacy is free or not depending on genre, setting, and character conception.

Yeah, I'm good with that, generally speaking languages are over-priced and if players want a lot of them they tend to turn - understandably and often GM-supported - to somewhat munchkiney solutions.

[zornwil]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

I would argue that William Shakespeare to a large extent helped define English as a modern language and he clearly would have not only Idiomatic English speech but KS: English at a high level. I think the disparity in costs is based on languages' overall usefulness within most campaigns. It's tremendously useful to be idiomatic in another language. How often will SS: Quantum Physics 14- be handy in most games? (Our current superteam has so many languages most of us converse in Norwegian instead of English even though we're an international team.)

 

That having been said, I certainly wouldn't object to a 1: Basic, 2: Fluent, 3: Idiomatic system for languages to bring them into line with other skills. The possible downside to this is the elimination or reduction of one of my favorite HERO features, the Language Similarity Chart.

I like the chart, too, but just because it's cool-looking, I don't think it really helps the game. It does remind me of a somewhat similar but even cooler chart in a cheapie encyclopedia set my mother bought from the grocery store (volume by volume, I'm sure most people know the kind).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

I like the chart' date=' too, but just because it's cool-looking, I don't think it really helps the game. It does remind me of a somewhat similar but even cooler chart in a cheapie encyclopedia set my mother bought from the grocery store (volume by volume, I'm sure most people know the kind).[/quote']I'd like to see the chart retained even if languages are revised. Perhaps a 1 point savings for language similarities no matter how close the relationship is, although that would obviously require some revision of language similarities. I suppose one could introduce ½ point discounts and apply the total discounts only to the total language package, or maybe only if the character purchases Linguist.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Fiddling With 6th - Skills (first of ??)

 

RE: Languages. Personally I think they need to change it to a four-step model instead of the current five-step one, with 3pt as "Sufficiently Fluent", 2pt as "Accented", 1pt as "Conversational", and 4pt as "Expert". There's not a strong enough line between the 1pt and 2pt values under the current model, IMO.