Experts?

[Gadodel]

I really like the optional Skill Enhancer 'Expert'. Though, I am finding that one can really pile on the skills with the right explanation. In the book, they gave the example of Russia. I believe that the list of skills could be quite long.

 

Do you allow/use this skill enhancer?

 

Do you have a limit on the number of skills that can be a part of it?

[Vondy]

Re: Experts?

 

I don't have the new DC, and therefore cannot read the text, but from your vague rumblings it sounds like it could be easily abused.

[greymankle]

Re: Experts?

 

I don't really find it all that broken. No more so then tacking on 30 languages with the linguist enhancer. I think it actually balances out as far as enhancers go. Someone can get a discount for speaking Chinese and Latin but, before this enhancer, I would pay full price for language Chinese and AK China. The latter being, obviously, much more related.

 

If you could throw in dex skills or something then I would wonder. I just see it as a more broad way to flesh out the non-combat side of a character. as long as you don't have people trying to abuse it. But thats what GM's are for. I don't think you need to arbitrarily limit it. Go case by case.

 

But that's just my 2/5th's of a nickel.

[Nevenall]

Re: Experts?

 

I welcome anything that encourages people to take non-combat skills.

[Gadodel]

Re: Experts?

 

I welcome anything that encourages people to take non-combat skills.

Absolutely.

 

Players somehow find it comforting to know that they can buy a lot of AK, CK, CuK, KS, PS and SS without buying the indiviudal enhancers. It is defining how they are related that also helps flesh out a character.

[tkdguy]

Re: Experts?

 

A friend of mine once suggested taking a 10-point VPP just for skills. Then a PC can get a high proficiency in any skill that he needs at the moment. Another friend won't allow that in his game, so clear it with your GM (or decide for yourself, if you are the GM) beforehand.

[Gadodel]

Re: Experts?

 

That's a pretty intriguing idea. Could you elaborate?

 

Pool?

Control Cost?

 

etc.

[tkdguy]

Re: Experts?

 

I don't quite remember the details. In was in 4th Edition, and it was my first time playing Champions. I wanted a character with lots of forensic skills, so I spent lots of points on scientific and technical skills. My GM (the guy who suggested the pool) said I didn't have any powers and too little defenses, which is why I got stunned easily. After the game he suggested a 10-point skill pool so I could have any skill I wanted. I don't remember anything about a control cost, just 10 points that could be put into any skill that would be needed at the time.

 

I think the other GM wouldn't allow it because it can easily be abused.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Experts?

 

I dont have a problem with it -- you should never punish players for wanting to take in concept skills, and skill-mongers are always expensive to build in the HERO System. The Expert Skill Enhancer helps to reward a player for having a concept and makes certain character types much more feasible.

 

It basically just relies on the GM setting boundaries, and as long as the GM is consistent with all characters using the Enhancers it's basically a wash within the context of the campaign -- like many things it's only a problem if the GM is lenient with certain characters and strict with others. And in situations like that it's not the mechanic thats the problem -- it's the GM's inconsistency/favoritism that is at fault for any gross imbalances.

[Spence]

Re: Experts?

 

I don't think I would allow it in general play either. I seems to just sidestep paying for skills. Pay ten points and get everything. I might allow it for a "matrix" type skill download or a cyber-implant (skillwire) type thing, but I would require changes between scenario's unless there was a really really good explanation.

 

 

 

I don't quite remember the details. In was in 4th Edition, and it was my first time playing Champions. I wanted a character with lots of forensic skills, so I spent lots of points on scientific and technical skills. My GM (the guy who suggested the pool) said I didn't have any powers and too little defenses, which is why I got stunned easily. After the game he suggested a 10-point skill pool so I could have any skill I wanted. I don't remember anything about a control cost, just 10 points that could be put into any skill that would be needed at the time.

 

I think the other GM wouldn't allow it because it can easily be abused.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Experts?

 

I think it's a good idea. Scholar allows the character to take several KS skills at a discount. Same with Linguist, Jack of all Trades, and Scientist (with respective skills). But what about the person who is a trained mechanic, for example? Rather than take Scholar to get several decent KSs (which might not fit conceptually), and a couple of PSs (if appropriate), the mechanic could take Expert and have two KS (automobiles, automotive repair), PSs (mechanic, body repair), electronics, mechanics, maybe inventor, lockpicking, security systems, or anything else that specifically relates to his chosen profession.

 

I see it as a good alternative to packages in the right context. Possibly an abuse magnet, but with only cursory oversight it should work fairly well.

[Sociotard]

Re: Experts?

 

Erm, he couldn't take Electronics or inventor or a few of the others with any discount. those aren't "background" skills. He could take the KS's you mentioned, as well as the PS's. he might take an AK: Garages to simulate being able to feel his way around any garage he came into (I bet he keeps his ratchet around here . . . yep, here it is)

 

The others, however, are not background skills

[Markdoc]

Re: Experts?

 

In my games, I have been using a similar idea for many years and it hasn't become abusive. First off, as already noted, I *like* players to take lots of skills. I have had problems with characters who want to bulk up on skills. Secondly, in the variation I have used, the GM gets to define what is, or is not, a background skill, so it doesn't simply become an excuse for buying cheap combat-useful skills

 

The basic guidelines I use are here:

 

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#SkillEnhancers

 

One thing I am curious about - how general is this "Expert" skill modifier?

 

cheers, Mark

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Experts?

 

I haven't gotten DC yet (hasn't shown up at the FLGS again, and I'm trying real hard to keep credit card purchaces to buisness only), but the idea, from what I see, sounds great. In our 4th ed games we pretty much decided that Scholar could also act as an Expert kind of modifier... no game differences in that case, but it allowed someone like a viking ranger to have all the various KS's he wanted without seeming bookish or a powergamer

[CourtFool]

Experts starring John Travolta

 

I welcome anything that encourages people to take non-combat skills.

 

Exactly.

 

The way I saw it was that it allowed a character a discount for taking related skills that were in different categories (Area, Knowledge, Professional and Science) without having to take all of the enhancers. Thus, someone from Russia would get a discount on AK Russion, Language Russian and maybe an appropriate PS.

 

It seems like a mini Elemental Control to me. There are three Power Frameworks to make Powers cheaper. It is about time Skills get their day.

[Gadodel]

Re: Experts?

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/hero_houserules.htm#SkillEnhancers

Very interesting. 'Package Deals' are not something I use (yet-if ever) and I like your alternative just a bit better for the time being. I'd have to use it in play to make a final decision!