Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

[megaplayboy]

Was thinking about this today--since noncombat skills often incur specific types of penalties, couldn't one reasonably buy levels only to offset penalties(and not to improve the unmodified roll)?

 

For example, one could be a skilled gymnast or acrobat, trained to routinely perform fairly difficult feats to the extent they are no more difficult than simpler ones. Say, having a 12- skill roll, and 4 levels versus penalties only?

 

Or a character who's always unflappable and smooth, but not necessarily always successful, might have some presence skills at 14 or 15-, and several penalty levels to offset difficult or unusual conditions for performing the skill.

There's still a chance they'll fail, but they aren't as affected by other factors as those without the levels might be.

 

I'm trying to resolve what the limitation value would be-- -1/2 or -1 seem to make the most sense...

[Mike W]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I don't think this really applies. I mean, the "simple" stuff gives a bonus to the roll. Only the most difficult things impose any penalty. And since most skills are already 1-2 pts per +1, you can't really reduce the cost any further anyway.

[CourtFool]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I was thinking about this as well. Specifically I was thinking of buying some sort of PSL for my character's PRE skills. The only example I could think of at the time was to offset alien race penalties. I suppose things like this can always just be done with Limitations. I was just looking for a way around my GM's cap on my skills.

 

A little off topic, but I have never seen a GM apply the +1 to +3 for an 'easy' or 'routine' task. If you are rolling, you are at base skill level at best. This may just be my bad experience but a pet peeve of mine when you consider a 11- is suppose to represent a trained professional.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

A little off topic' date=' but I have [b']never[/b] seen a GM apply the +1 to +3 for an 'easy' or 'routine' task. If you are rolling, you are at base skill level at best. This may just be my bad experience but a pet peeve of mine when you consider a 11- is suppose to represent a trained professional.

 

I've never seen the rioll changed. I have seen "that's a routine task and you're a trained professional acting under no adverse conditions, so you succeed".

[Trebuchet]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I have seen "that's a routine task and you're a trained professional acting under no adverse conditions' date=' so you succeed".[/quote']That's the method I use in my campaign. Only if it's being done under hurried and/or adverse conditions do a make characters roll for performing routine tasks they've paid the points for. If CyberKnight, who has both Combat Pilot and several appropriate TF's with aircraft, is landing the Sea Raptor on a runway, then there's no need to roll. If he's trying to "gently" crash land it in a wheatfield with the left wing in shreds and one engine on fire then he needs to roll dice.

[Silbeg]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I've never seen the rioll changed. I have seen "that's a routine task and you're a trained professional acting under no adverse conditions' date=' so you succeed".[/quote']

 

Stealing an idea from D20, I have encorporated a "Take 11" roll option in my game... for just this situation. As long as you are trained, and are not rushing or otherwise under adverse conditions, you may "Take 11". Thus, an 11- roll will always succeed.

 

However, in combat or other adverse conditions, I will always require a roll...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

FWIW here's an official ruling on the legality of the concept, from the Rules FAQ:

 

Q: The rules limit PSLs to combat effects. Could a character buy PSLs to counter similar penalties for Skills and the like — for example, PSLs with Paramedics to counteract the penalties imposed by the size of the wound being treated?

 

A: With the GM’s permission, yes. The player and GM should work together to determine which cost category for PSLs was most appropriate.

[austenandrews]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I absolutely think they'd be appropriate. In fact I'll probably start using that idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

It would be nice to see the Skill Modifiers table on 5ER p 45 expanded somewhat. There are whole chapters on modifiers to combat and even two rather larger tables for modifiers to PER rolld (5ER p 353). Giving a bit more thought to the modifers for skills would IMO make the game feel less like the 1st and 2nd edition Champions game: a superhero combat emulation system with little thought given to other aspects. We have come an enormous way since then but still (see above) have a long way to journey's end.

 

I think having realistic modifiers for skills and more emphasis on their use in the game can only be good for Hero, at every stage of the process from character inception to running or playing the game.

 

To an extent it might be necessary to suggest bonuses and skills for individual skills, which would be quite a job of work, but it would not be difficult to put in modifiers by category (INT based/DEX based/PRE based).

 

I'm sure The Ultimate Skill will go a long way to addressing this, but it is a shame that (always acknowledging that improvements have been made) the revised edition did not do a little more: skills surely apply to all genres more than many of the powers do!

 

To end on a positive note I really like the idea of skill subcategories and would like to see more done with this.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I've never seen the rioll changed. I have seen "that's a routine task and you're a trained professional acting under no adverse conditions' date=' so you succeed".[/quote']

 

That's how I do it as well. Makes things simple and speeds up the game. I'm not gonna require a DEX roll to open a door or stand up properly, so I'm not gonna require any kind of roll to do a backflip on a mat in a gym. As long as you've got the capability, you just do your routine tasks. Once combat starts (or any other stressful situation), nothing in routine, though I might not impose a penalty for certain tasks (like the backflip) or even a roll for "duh" actions (standing up).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Stealing an idea from D20, I have encorporated a "Take 11" roll option in my game... for just this situation. As long as you are trained, and are not rushing or otherwise under adverse conditions, you may "Take 11". Thus, an 11- roll will always succeed.

 

However, in combat or other adverse conditions, I will always require a roll...

 

I kinda like this idea. Take 11 would be similar to Take 10, and perhaps a Take 8 would be like Take 20. I probably won't use such terminology, but for out of combat tasks I might use a mechanic like behind the curtin for resolving certain rolls.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

...although we already have a mechanic that allows substantial improvements to the roll if you take your time over it. Not a dead cert but then 'Take 10' isn't a dead cert unless you know the difficulty of the task you are attempting. Actually, while I'm pointing I might as well mention we had it long before d20 had it.

 

Might I also suggest that, if a task is story critical (so you do want the player to roll) but there is no immediate pressure, just give a +3 bonus on top of any time bonuses. Extremely unlikely you'll fail all but the hardest tasks. Take 10 would be the equivalent of spending a minute over a roll, or +2 and take 20 would be the equivalent of taking 20 minutes or +4 to the roll.

 

On a 'Take 20' with the 'no pressure' bonus you get +7 to the roll: only a roll of 3 would fail on an average task with an average skill.

 

If you have 20 minutes to take you are probably always going to qualify for the 'no pressure' bonus. If, for example you find a nuclear bomb on a countdown that means it will go off in half an hour but a failed roll might set it off immediately you could Take 20, but not get the 'no pressure' bonus.

 

You could call them Take a Minute and Take 20, if you felt the need. You'd have to feel it pretty strongly though.

 

Take 20 in d20 can only be used, incidentally, if there are no adverse consequences to a failed roll. You could not use it in the 'bomb defuse'; scenario: it assumes, I believe, you make several attempts, try all the combinations and eventually get it if you are capable of doing so at that skill level. It is just a mechanic to stop you having to roll a lot of times. Personally I'm with the earlier posters, led by Hugh Neilson, who say if it is something you can normally do and the roll is not in a critical situation, you make it. I mean you have to use a bit of sense in these things...in a way it is a crying shame that there is any need for a d20 'take 20' mechanic: it demonstrates something of a lack of faith in the GMing abilities of the reader

[Steve]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Was thinking about this today--since noncombat skills often incur specific types of penalties' date=' couldn't one reasonably buy levels only to offset penalties(and not to improve the unmodified roll)?[/quote']

 

This is done in the new Valdorian Age book. An example would be penalty skill levels to offset time modifiers.

[Greatwyrm]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Maybe we'll get some expanded rules in Ultimate Skill.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

RE: Original topic. There's already precedent for this -- take a good look at Environmental Movement, it uses this mechanic.

 

RE: Take 11/8. HERO already has a similar mechanic, allowing you to get bonuses to your skill roll by taking extra steps on the time table. And given HERO's chance curve, without penalties to counteract even a +2 or +3 to the roll can nearly guarantee success.

 

RE: Need for this. Depends on your campaign, and the feeling of your GM toward how meaningful skills should be.

 

If you belong to the school at believes 11- is a professional level of skill and that how much you make the roll by should never matter, then PSL's for skill is a meaningless complication.

 

If on the other hand you believe 14- better represents a professional level of skill, and that players who purchase skills should be rewarded, then this could be an interesting option.

 

I started allowing them in my current campaign, and while I see a couple potential low-level abuses for the most part I like the way they work out. The following are a couple of examples I've seen on PC sheets.

 

#1> "MacGuyver" levels -- PSL vs the penalty for having insufficient tools. A must for any self-respecting gadgeteer, or Survivalist (Generally assumed to cap at -4)

 

#2> "Postcog" levels -- PSL vs time-based penalties; for the PC in question, it applies to her Tracking skill to allow her to negate the penalty for following older trails. (Generally -1 per step on the time chart until "day", -2 per step thereafter)

 

One that I initially allowed and quickly changed my mind on was allowing PSL's to apply to Find Weakness (vs Lack of Weakness or the penalty for multiple checks). All it took was seeing it in battle with a High-SPD martial artist type...

 

One that I initially disallowed but have decided to allow on a test basis is PSL's vs the RSR penalty. For the most part it won't be that much of a cost saving, except for cases where a large number of skills are affected. My initial fear that it would trivialize the RSR penalty might bear out, though.

[OddHat]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

FWIW here's an official ruling on the legality of the concept, from the Rules FAQ:

 

Q: The rules limit PSLs to combat effects. Could a character buy PSLs to counter similar penalties for Skills and the like — for example, PSLs with Paramedics to counteract the penalties imposed by the size of the wound being treated?

 

A: With the GM’s permission, yes. The player and GM should work together to determine which cost category for PSLs was most appropriate.

 

I've based several characters on this idea. They were fun in play, and I did not feel that they were gaining unfair advantages. It's a better way to build Super Skills than using powers. Want to pick a lock in 1 phase instead of 5 minutes? Lockpicking +9 penalty levels versus time modifiers is far more intuitive than Transformation: Locked to Unlocked.

[nexus]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

One that I initially disallowed but have decided to allow on a test basis is PSL's vs the RSR penalty. For the most part it won't be that much of a cost saving' date=' except for cases where a large number of skills are affected. My initial fear that it would trivialize the RSR penalty might bear out, though.[/quote']

 

I might allow that for a Fantasy Magic system for specific spells or types of spells to allow mages to have a chance to cast big AP spells without getting what amounts to automatic success on small spells.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

I might allow that for a Fantasy Magic system for specific spells or types of spells to allow mages to have a chance to cast big AP spells without getting what amounts to automatic success on small spells.

 

For example, "PSL's vs RSR penalties where the penalty is at least -6"...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Take 20 in d20 can only be used' date=' incidentally, if there are no adverse consequences to a failed roll.[/quote']

 

Which, frankly, is obnoxious.

 

Player: "I take 20"

DM: "No, you can't do that."

Player: "Ahhh...so there's a bad consequence if I fail my roll. Casting a spell."

 

You could not use it in the 'bomb defuse'; scenario: it assumes' date=' I believe, you make several attempts, try all the combinations and eventually get it if you are capable of doing so at that skill level. It is just a mechanic to stop you having to roll a lot of times.[/quote']

 

I therefore take the mechanic one step further. A player who announces he will Take 20 gets the standard result if there is no adverse consequence to failure. If there is, I start rolling. He keeps trying until he either succeeds, or gets the adverse result. "I take 20" becomes shorthand for "I keep trying until it works or it becomes clear it's hopeless, unless I'm interrupted by something else."

[CourtFool]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Personally I'm with the earlier posters' date=' led by Hugh Neilson, who say if it is something you can normally do and the roll is not in a critical situation, you make it. I mean you have to use a bit of sense in these things...in a way it is a crying shame that there is any need for a d20 'take 20' mechanic: it demonstrates something of a lack of faith in the GMing abilities of the reader [/quote']

 

When I GM I do not make the players roll for a lot of things. I would say I fall somewhere between 'You do not have to roll if it is a routine action' and the Diceless Combat option in a previous Digital Hero. What I mean is, if they attempt something that is difficult and/or in a critical situation and I feel they have sufficient skill I do not make them roll. I strongly feel that characters with skill should be rewarded and I hate to see one unlucky roll make a fool out of a character who has the appropriate skill.

 

My problem is when I play, I want the GM to run like I do. We know that is never going to happen. What I may consider routine, my GM may not. I want a little more consistency. That is why I like the Take 8, Take 10, Take 11 and Take 20 ideas.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

RE: Take 11/8. HERO already has a similar mechanic' date=' allowing you to get bonuses to your skill roll by taking extra steps on the time table. And given HERO's chance curve, without penalties to counteract even a +2 or +3 to the roll can nearly guarantee success.[/quote']

 

It's not the same mechanic actualy. Perhaps for the Take 8 (d20's Take 20), but the idea of Take 11 has nothing to do with extra time. It takes the normal amount of time, you just forgo the roll and accept an average result. You trade off the chance of failing by removing the chance of an impressive success.

 

The idea of Take 8 is to suppliment or replace the taking extra time rules for situations where success is either assumed or unimportant. Save time figuring out bonuses and rolling dice by just saying that if you could succeed in the skill with a roll of 8 after figuring in normal penalties, you'd just succeed and move on.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Which, frankly, is obnoxious.

 

Player: "I take 20"

DM: "No, you can't do that."

Player: "Ahhh...so there's a bad consequence if I fail my roll. Casting a spell."

It would be very obnoxious if it worked like that, but it doesn't.

 

Any situation where there will definately be a consequence for a failed roll would be obvious (walking a tightrope, disarming a bomb, etc.). It's already obvious you can't forgo the roll unless the GM for whatever reason lets you.

 

In situations where the player/character wouldn't know about any consequences, there are a number of fun things to do. You can let them take their 20 and have them automatically fail (which if fair, espeically if the unknown penalties make it so). Or let some of that time pass before telling them that they've discoverd somethng that complicates matters and ask for an immediate roll to compensate. No time to do anything else, you've just run into a Skill Roll and you have to make it now. Can't even reassign Skill Levels. And of course you can always just tell the player they don't have the time to take 20 and can either attempt the Skill normally or wait until later.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

It would be very obnoxious if it worked like that, but it doesn't.

 

Any situation where there will definately be a consequence for a failed roll would be obvious (walking a tightrope, disarming a bomb, etc.). It's already obvious you can't forgo the roll unless the GM for whatever reason lets you.

 

The obviousness is the issue. And here's a simple example:

 

Player: Look for traps on the door - Take 20.

 

GM: You don't find any.

 

Player: I'll try to disarm a trap anyway - Take 20 (or I'll try to unlock the door - take 20)

 

GM: You can't take 20.

 

Player: Hmmm...that most likely means "magical Trap" - Sorceror, let's get some detect action going here.

 

VS

 

Player: Look for traps on the door - Take 20.

 

GM: You don't find any.

 

Player: I'll try to disarm a trap anyway - Take 20 (or I'll try to unlock the door - take 20)

 

GM [roll roll roll]

 

Player: Um...why are you rolling

 

GM: BOOM - make a reflect save!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

The obviousness is the issue. And here's a simple example:

 

I know it doesn't work like that. Any GM that works it that was is, in my opinion doing it wrong. Here's how I think it should be done.

Player: Look for traps on the door - Take 20.

 

GM: You don't find any.

Normally, I wouldn't even allow that. But if the group really had that kind of time and didn't mind waiting I might.

 

Player: I'll try to disarm a trap anyway - Take 20 (or I'll try to unlock the door - take 20)

 

GM: You can't take 20.

It wouldn't be "you can't take 20." It would be "you can't disarm a trap that isn't there." End of issue, even if there is a trap that the character didn't find. It's like walking into a room and trying to disarm a bomb that you haven't found yet. I just can't happen.

 

If the character did find a trap on his take 20, and asks to take 20 on disarming it, I'd just say no. They have to roll for those things. If they'd like to take the extra time and gain that bonus to their roll that's another thing... but they can't take 20.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Penalty Skill Levels for noncombat skills?

 

Traps aren't a good example here, because it can be argued there's "always" a chance something could go wrong.