Polishing The HERO System

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Polishing The HERO System

 

Thius could be alleviated if we make the stat have less impact at low levels. For example' date=' perhaps a familiarity, rather than being 8- is 7+ [stat/15'], so while a normal stat still gets you an 8-, a 50 stat gets you a 10-.

A 2 point skill could then be 10 + [stat/10], so Joe Average has an 11-, but Mr. Impressive gets a 15- (a pretty good skill roll for 2 points, but he paid 40 for PRE). The 3 point skill might then be 10 + [stat/5] so Joe Normal gets a 12- (ie he's pretty competent even compared to the 11- he would have had) while Mr. Impressive gets 20- (not a huge improvement over the present 19-).

This is an interesting idea, but I don't like the specific numbers you've chosen. I'd propose this:

 

1 point Familarity or Everyman Skill gives you a flat 8-.

2 points gives you 9+(CHA/10)-, so the average guy has a 50/50 chance.

3 points gives you 9+(CHA/5)-, like it does now.

And these prices would apply to background skills as well.

 

Sign me up, as well, for +1 to the roll costing 1 CP. This makes such additions a more viable option when compared to the price of skill levels. We could even go so far as to apply a NCM to such bonuses (maybe in NCM< campaigns, the price of +1 doubles after, say, +5).

I don't like this at all. If the main "useful" skills only cost 1/+1, what is the cost to increase the Background Skills?

 

For background skills (mostly PSs, KSs, and Sciences), I like to differentiate the roll depending on how general or specific the application of the skill is. Thusly (assuming a 3-point skill):

 

Normal roll: 9+(INT/5)-

More specific instance: 9+(INT/6)-

Very specific instance: 10+(INT/7)- or 10+(INT/8)-

Extremely specific instance: 10+(INT/10)- or 10+(INT/15)- or worse!

More general instance: 8+(INT/4)-

Very general instance: 8+(INT/3)-

Extremely general instance: 7+(INT/2.5)- or 6+(INT/2)-

 

A "specific" instance is one in which the specific training plays a more important role than the person's basic intelligence. A "general" instance relies less on specific technical information and more on a general understanding of the principles behind the skill. The base numbers above are intended to allow an 11- roll for an "average" 10 INT character.

 

For example, take PS: Doctor.

A patient comes in with a problem and needs to be diagnosed and cured. Assuming nothing really wierd is going on, this would be a normal roll.

The doctor comes upon a crashed alien spaceship with a dying alien inside. The doctor's specific knowledge of human physiology isn't going to help much here. This would be a more specific roll, since the doctor has no medical knowledge of this alien species. His intelligence isn't going to help as much, since the underlying fundamentals of human medicine don't apply.

The doctor encounters a person affected by an unknown disease. It may be within the doctor's capability to determine what the symptoms are and what systems of the patient are being affected. The basic ideas of medicine still apply, and in this case are more important than any specific knowledge of diseases, so this would be a more general application of the skill.

 

Note that more general or more specific instances do not necessarily imply easier or harder tasks. A general application could be extremely difficult, and a specific application could be fairly easy.

 

To see the difference this makes, take the following two doctors:

Dr. Book has read every medical text ever written and has studied every disease ever discovered. He has a 10 INT and a +6 to his PS: Doctor roll.

Dr. Brain has the normal medical training and a natural talent for science, a great intuitive and creative mind. He has only the base PS: Doctor roll, but has a 40 INT.

1) Both doctors have a normal PS: Doctor roll of 17-. Dr. Book has 9+(10/5)+6=17-. Dr. Brain has 9+(40/5)=17-.

2) A patient comes in with a really obscure disease, this could be a very specific instance. Now Dr. Book has a 10+(10/8)+6=17- roll, while Dr. Brain has 10+(40/8)=15- roll.

3) A new innovative treatment is needed for a disease that appears in no textbook. This could be a very general instance. Dr. Book still has a 8+(10/3)+6=17- roll. But Dr. Brain has a 8+(40/3)=21- roll.

Any penalty or bonus to these rolls due to ease or difficulty, applies to both doctors as normal. Let's say the above three cases are all very difficult and have a -5 penalty. Then their rolls would look like this:

 

Case Book Brain

#1 12- 12-

#2 12- 10-

#3 12- 16-

 

Dr. Book is more likely to cure you.

Dr. Brain is more likely to discover a new cure.

 

One of the main advantages of this idea is that it allows different INT scores to be more finely differentiated. With this system, there is an actual game difference between an 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 INT. Whereas in the standard rules, all these scores are functionally the same.

[zornwil]

Re: Polishing The HERO System

 

I've considered making all skills general skills. The only issue I've been wrestling with is the fact that it makes intelligence all but useless with the exception of perception. I'm contemplating the idea' date=' really.[/quote']

You could use INT (and for other types of skills, other CHARs) as a sort of Skill Enhancer, much as "Scientist" is for Science skills, and assign it to a wide variety. Just an idea.

[JMcL63]

Re: Polishing The HERO System

 

The drawback to this could be 1 point now buying a decent skill roll for someone with high stats. Thius could be alleviated if we make the stat have less impact at low levels. For example' date=' [b']perhaps a familiarity, rather than being 8- is 7+ [stat/15][/b] [my emphasis], so while a normal stat still gets you an 8-, a 50 stat gets you a 10-. This prevents Mr. 50 PRE paying 1 point for each interaction skill and getting a roll of 17-, but still gives him a significantly greater chance of success than a 8 PRE person with the same familiarity.

I don't think it is a good idea to introduce the divisor 15 into skill roll calculations! Skill rolls are quite fine using the rule of 5, surely? The basic 1+2pt structure of skills costs is just fine IMO. One of the big advances of 4^th ed. remember was unifying all those odd skills costs into a simple 1+2+2, well, most of them at least. And this was developed further in HERO5. So I'd suggest that the 1+2pts are just fine. The bog standard 8- Familiarity enables you to use skills to do things no simple characteristic roll could ever do, except perhaps for superheroes, and you can't use skill levels with them, so making Familiarities CHA-based seems both illogical to me, and simply too much of a giveaway to super-powered characters.

 

A 2 point skill could then be 10 + [stat/10], so Joe Average has an 11-, but Mr. Impressive gets a 15- (a pretty good skill roll for 2 points, but he paid 40 for PRE). The 3 point skill might then be 10 + [stat/5] so Joe Normal gets a 12- (ie he's pretty competent even compared to the 11- he would have had) while Mr. Impressive gets 20- (not a huge improvement over the present 19-).

The divisor 10, and a second base number from which to calculate skill rolls too. And the divisor 5. No, that's just too complicated I have to say Hugh Neilson.

 

 

Skills one can use without training could then be broadened, and perhaps be 5 + [stat/20], so Joe Average has minimal likelihood of success, but Mr. Imnpressive stands a chance (8-) just because of his natural ability. Some skills would still require training (eg. an 80 INT wizard can't use a computer).

This would seriously undermine the value of even the 1pt Familiarity, not to mention adding a 3^rd base value and 4^th divisor for calculating skill rolls. No, I can't say I think that's a good idea at all Hugh Neilson.

 

Sign me up, as well, for +1 to the roll costing 1 CP. This makes such additions a more viable option when compared to the price of skill levels. We could even go so far as to apply a NCM to such bonuses (maybe in NCM< campaigns, the price of +1 doubles after, say, +5).

We have consensus! I like the idea of NCM. It's the sort of thing that could be used to add colour to campaigns.

[Guest Blizzzard]

New !!!

 

http://www.enchant.ru/go.php?login=NeoGamer

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Polishing The HERO System

 

I don't think it is a good idea to introduce the divisor 15 into skill roll calculations! Skill rolls are quite fine using the rule of 5' date=' surely? The basic 1+2pt structure of skills costs is just fine IMO.[/quote']

 

Then continue using the present system. I haven't changed it in my games either.

 

However, the issue posed was that 1 point for 8-, 2 points for 11- and 3 points for 19- (assuming a 50 base stat) didn't make sense to Warp9. He was looking for a mechanic whereby the stat would have some bearing on the familiarity and "general" skill roll, while still maintaining the three levels as viable options.

 

One could also go to a structure where familiarity is 6 + stat over 5 (1 point) and every additional point (or two) simply adds 1 to the base roll, but that does give a free ride to a 50 INT or 50 PRE character. Hence the variable denominators if such a system were to retain some value in buying skills. An alternative would be to make familiarity 3+ Stat/5. but one of my objectives was to keep the roll more or less unchanged for Joe Normal (although I was unsuccessful at one point in doing so).

 

One of the big advances of 4^th ed. remember was unifying all those odd skills costs into a simple 1+2+2' date=' well, most of them at least. And this was developed further in HERO5. So I'd suggest that the 1+2pts are just fine. The bog standard 8- Familiarity enables you to use skills to do things no simple characteristic roll could ever do, except perhaps for superheroes, and you can't use skill levels with them, so making Familiarities CHA-based seems both illogical to me, and simply too much of a giveaway to super-powered characters.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. However, the "stat has no meaning for familiaritry or general 11-" made no sense to the Warp9 (actually, it was identified as the problem - "made no sense" puts words in his mouth), so dealing with his concern requires looking at alternatives which do involve characteristics. Whether it's "too much of a giveaway" is a matter of opinion, influenced by game style. Oddhat seems to think this may better balance high skill characters with other archetypes in his games, so opinions obviously vary.

 

As for 1 pt or 2 pts for +1 to the roll, this too is a matter of what the values are. I hadn't thought about it prior to this thread, but why would, for example, a Mage character with 5 magic skills ever buy +1 to one roll rather than shell out one extra point for "+1 level with Magic skills? Dropping the cost to 1 point makes this at least somewhat more economical.

 

Now,PhilFleischman raised background skills, which are +1 for 1 point already (not unified with other skills under 4e or 5e, by the way). That's a god question, and one which I completely overloooked. I'm tempted to say +2 for 1 point, but that's a fsairly rapid rise. On the other hand, they're already discounted from normal skill costs because they're not as useful, and if they're not as useful, they should cost less. And I don't t6hink a player with 18 INT and KS: Chess having a 17- roll instead of a 15- roll for the cost of 5 points, or being able to shave a point off his 15- roll is going to break my games. YMMV.

 

The divisor 10' date=' [i']and [/i]a second base number from which to calculate skill rolls too. And the divisor 5. No, that's just too complicated I have to say Hugh Neilson.

 

Some might find skill enhancers, ordinary skills, background skills, familiarity, general and stat-based skills to be too complicated as well. That's not a matter which can be objectively assessed. I do agree that the "three stat based" aproach would be more complicated, but someone who intuits that skills should either vary with relevant stas at all levels, or not at all, may differ.

 

A simpler approach, which would still incorporate stats, would be 1 point for 8- familiarity and 2 points for 11- general skill, with no 3 point level. This system would permit complimentary stat rolls for all uses of the skill. You could even make the bonus +1 per 2 points for familiarity and +1 per 1 point for a full skill, to further differentiate. Not a lot less complex, and still favours high stats, but as the original poster noted, there is some illogic in the present system.

 

For 1 point, 33 DEX MA can have Familiarity in acrobatics and succeed on an 8 or less. If he spends another 2 points he leaps (no pun intended) to success on a 16 or less. A further 2 point investment brings that all the way to 17 or less. From a logic perspective, does this make sense? Maybe, maybe not. From a point value perspective, I can tell you which points generated the greatest benefits.

 

[Equal opportunity example for Heroic campaigns] For 1 point, 18 DEX rogue can have Familiarity in acrobatics and succeed on an 8 or less. If he spends another 2 points he leaps (no pun intended) to success on a 13 or less. A further 2 point investment brings that all the way to 14 or less. From a logic perspective, does this make sense? Maybe, maybe not. From a point value perspective, I can tell you which points generated the greatest benefits.

 

The science skills have the worse example that a guy with 5 INT gets an 8- roll for 1 point, an 11- roll for two points, or pays 3 points to drop to a 10-. No one with an INT of 17- benefits any more from investing an extra point to make it a stat roll than they would from spending 1 point for +1 to the roll (yup, sciences are also +1 per 1 point IIRC).

 

This would seriously undermine the value of even the 1pt Familiarity' date=' not to mention adding a 3^rd base value and 4^th divisor for calculating skill rolls. No, I can't say I think that's a good idea at all Hugh Neilson.[/quote']

 

I'm not clear on how having the same or a better roll undermines the value of a 1 point familiarity. I don't find 3 base values (which we have now anyway in 8-, 1- or 9+stat/5) to be inordinately complex, or even adding 1 for "untrained rolls" if one wishes to do so. 4 divisors, frankly, isn't the end of the world to me either. Pay your points, look at the line in the "Skill Roll Chart", compute your roll (four function calculators are pretty cheap, if you need one for what I consoder elementary arithmetic - NOT mathematics), write the number down and you're done until you get some xp. If you add untrained rlls, a listing of a character's untrained rolls wouldn't hurt to keep handy, but I'm nots ure how many skills I'd consider to merit "untrained rolls". It's probably just as easy to consider those "everyman familiarities".

 

We have consensus! I like the idea of NCM. It's the sort of thing that could be used to add colour to campaigns.

 

So variable divisors are a problem for you, but variable multipliers for point costs are not. As I said previously "what is too complex" is a pretty subjective determination. Still, I'm glad you found somethingb useful to you in my post.

[OddHat]

Re: Polishing The HERO System

 

Actually I stick to the current system. The 6+CHA/5 for 1 point, +1 per 1 point system has some appeal for me, but I'd rather not change a core feature of the game system when the current version works well enough.

 

The 6+ system does make everyman skills more powerful if you don't cap them, but then the super-inteligent and/or charismatic character who can perform everyday skill-based tasks superbly well without formal training is a staple of genre fiction. It even passes the "common sense" test; more intelligent people do tend to perform better with less formal training in a given task.

 

This reminds me of the endless arguments that STR is too point efficient and should be broken up into X number of different stats.