Odd Skill Enhancer Question

[Hawksmoor]

Copied this from the HERO Questions Forum. I wanted to address the answer in a place I could actually respond.

 

 

I know how this would work in the campaign, and GM ruling, but was curious what the official answer would be.

 

First SFX -

A character who is fairly competant in secret ID, and has a number of Knowledge Skills.

 

This character gains characteristics (including INT and such) as well as powers when she powers up. At this point her skills also get a boost,.

 

The mechanics decided for the SFX of this boost was buying Scholar only in Hero ID. Now all of the 2 pt KS's that are at 11- in Secret ID become full INT skills with the addition of Scholar in Hero ID.

Note- she also gets a number of skill levels in Int skills in Hero ID as well.

 

The question is, is this formally legal?

 

I aske because while I make my own rulings, I like to know what the official is in most cases, so I can explain differences to people new to my group.

 

I would say not. You can jerry rig, like Simon says, a Private Adder to represent the OIHID. But Skill Enhancers are like mini power frameworks for skills. Such a drastic change is beyond a simple OIHID.

 

Stylistically I would think that Multiform is the power to use. I know, I know never use a power to represent something a limitation could do better, but in this case the character is getting like the Wisdom of Solomon.

 

Hold on a Sec.

 

Why not buy INT (only to make skill rolls) OIHID instead? Makes the character better at the skills she knows without having to resort to a clunky skill enhancer.

 

Hawksmoor

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

That could work too.

 

To me this one is all in the special effects. The character in question has bonuses to all characteristics in Hero ID, as well as a couple of levels in Int Skills.

 

As to the Limited int question - I have always found Characteristics limited "to skill rolls only" to be unaesthetic - if you want bonuses to skills buy up the skill -which in essence is what a skill enhancer does.

 

The idea here is that there is two secret IDs and when they merge, the combined mind makes connections (and uses little bits from each other) that they don't have when seperate.

 

I played around with Multiform and Duplication, and settled on strait duplication, because the whole "two secret IDs" in almost never going to be a bonus, but a drawback, and paying points for both mutliform and duplication for a drawback seems too much.

 

So I was looking at ways to increase her abilities in Hero ID, and I have never thought of skill enhancers as "cost saving measures" but "increase in ability of skills" so that was the construct I came up with.

 

I actually don't find the limited skill enhancer clunky. Design taste and all that.

[Big Willy]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Private Adder

 

VIPER's newest recruit? Destined for great things if he passes his officer's exam...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Why not just buy +1 level with skills, OIHID?

 

I normally see the skill enhancers used to buy a lot of skills at base value, not to get +1 to them.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

There isn't anything strictly illegal about a Skill Enhancer, OIHID. The only question is, are you really being limited by the Limitation? Is the character going to find himself, with reasonable frequency, in his non-hero ID, and wanting to use the heroic-level of his skills, and not able to simply change into hero-ID, use the skill, and change back? If so, then go for it. It's only a one-point savings.

[mikesama]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

That could work too.

 

To me this one is all in the special effects. The character in question has bonuses to all characteristics in Hero ID, as well as a couple of levels in Int Skills.

 

As to the Limited int question - I have always found Characteristics limited "to skill rolls only" to be unaesthetic - if you want bonuses to skills buy up the skill -which in essence is what a skill enhancer does.

 

The idea here is that there is two secret IDs and when they merge, the combined mind makes connections (and uses little bits from each other) that they don't have when seperate.

 

I played around with Multiform and Duplication, and settled on strait duplication, because the whole "two secret IDs" in almost never going to be a bonus, but a drawback, and paying points for both mutliform and duplication for a drawback seems too much.

 

So I was looking at ways to increase her abilities in Hero ID, and I have never thought of skill enhancers as "cost saving measures" but "increase in ability of skills" so that was the construct I came up with.

 

I actually don't find the limited skill enhancer clunky. Design taste and all that.

 

Actually to skill rolls only useally works out as an actual disadvantage:

 

DEX: No bonuses to CVs or combat order or speed

STR: No bonus to damage or secondary stats

Con: no bonus to secondary stat or makeing it harder to be stunned

Bod: No harder to kill, no secondary stat bonus

Int: No bonus to perception

Ego: no bonus to ECVs or protection from mental powera

Pre: No increased defense or offense presence

Com: uh nothing really

 

Of course you can always by int skill levels and the like.

[Simon]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

There isn't anything strictly illegal about a Skill Enhancer' date=' OIHID. The only question is, are you really being limited by the Limitation? Is the character going to find himself, with reasonable frequency, in his non-hero ID, and wanting to use the heroic-level of his skills, and not able to simply change into hero-ID, use the skill, and change back? If so, then go for it. It's only a one-point savings.[/quote']

Actually, there is.

 

Strictly illegal. Against the rules. Yadda yadda yadda.

[Mister E]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

I would just go with bumping the INT up, and any other stats you wanted to. OIHID can be put on characterists, and it sounds like it would fit snuggly with the SFX.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Actually' date=' there is.

 

 

Yep, that's why I asked the question, to find out if what was going to be done was going to be cannon or house-rule.

 

Now I know.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Actually' date=' there is.

 

Strictly illegal. Against the rules. Yadda yadda yadda.

Does it actually say somewhere in the book that you can't put limitations on Skill Enhancers?

[Simon]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Does it actually say somewhere in the book that you can't put limitations on Skill Enhancers?

It doesn't say that you can't (explicitly) in the book. Nor does it say that you can (explicitly) in the book.

 

One would assume that the fact that the book gives good discussion about the application of Modifiers to abilities like Skills, Powers, etc. and none whatsoever to the application of Modifiers to Skill Enhancers would be a good hint that it is not legal....but the lack of any statement to that effect means that there is ambiguity. Which is pretty much a given in a rule base as broad as the Hero System.

 

And so you consult the guy that writes the rules (Steve Long) and ask him if such a thing is legal or not.

 

And he says "No."

 

Pretty straightforward.

[zornwil]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

I can see the ruling from a balance perspective but otherwise I don't see a logical basis for it, so curious if that was the only rationale. Skill Enhancers are pretty cheap already, anyway.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

One would assume that the fact that the book gives good discussion about the application of Modifiers to abilities like Skills' date=' Powers, etc. and none whatsoever to the application of Modifiers to Skill Enhancers would be a good hint that it is not legal....[/quote']

Perhaps you would assume that, and you're well within your right to do so, but I do not. Since you can apply Limitations to Skills, and Skill Enhancers are right there in the Skills section, I would think they come under the same rules.

 

but the lack of any statement to that effect means that there is ambiguity. .... And so you consult the guy that writes the rules (Steve Long) and ask him if such a thing is legal or not.

 

And he says "No."

 

Pretty straightforward.

Hmmm... Ambiguous and straight forward? At the same time?

 

If I believed in "because the game designer said so," I'd still be playing D&D.

[Simon]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Perhaps you would assume that' date=' and you're well within your right to do so, but I do not. Since you can apply Limitations to Skills, and Skill Enhancers are right there in the Skills section, I would think they come under the same rules.[/quote']

Ah....I get it now. You're of the "if it doesn't say it explicitly in the rulebook, it's not part of the game" school of thinking. Nevermind that the rulebook is the printed word attempt by Steve Long to communicate the rules of the game and that when there is a question over something in the rulebook (or, more often, something that is not in the rulebook) he answers it, improving on his communication of the rules.

 

Have fun with that. Just don't expect others to be quite so....blinded by the printed word.

 

 

Hmmm... Ambiguous and straight forward? At the same time?

Don't pretend to be dense....it's not becoming of you. The book left some ambiguity as to the rules, so the guy that wrote the book was asked. He said "No." -- which removed the ambiguity and left a rather straightforward answer.

 

If I believed in "because the game designer said so' date='" I'd still be playing D&D.[/quote']

So why, may I ask, is the rulebook any different? That's just what Steve Long is saying....it's still Steve Long. Is it the order in which he says things? Or the timing? Or is it the form?

 

Again, the rulebook is just Steve's attempt to communicate the rules that he has developed. Like any form of communication (especially when dealing with as wide of a subject as the full rules of the Hero System), there will be some things left out, some things which are not communicated properly, and somethings which are simply miscommunicated. The good news is that we have Steve right here to answer any questions that we have and to elaborate upon or correct himself where needed.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Fair enough.And Skill Enhancers are cheap enough at a cost of 3CP each.And considering their cheapness,there's not much point in buying them with Power Limitations anyway.

[Simon]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Note: the following is just my interpretation of the reasoning behind the rule. While Steve is willing to clarify rules for us, he generally does not get into the philosophy behind those rules.

 

I think that the main problem here is that some folks are looking at how Skill Enhancers operate "backwards" -- they don't add a +1 to the roll...or convert a generic KS to an INT-based KS, they

reduce the cost of certain Skills or Perks

 

There's a difference.

 

There's no game mechanic for changing the cost of abilities during game play. You can change the levels of abilities (Aid, Drain, OIHID levels, etc), but that's a fundamentally different operation. Skill Enhancers don't add levels, they reduce cost.

 

 

Again, this is just my interpretation of the reasoning behind this rule. Take it for what it's worth.

[Simon]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Let's be more specific - Steve introduced a new rule. It's okay that he did so' date=' it's well within his authority. But it is beyond a clarification unless there is a reference to the contrary, which does not seem to be the case.[/quote']

I disagree -- it's a new rule if it actively changes an existing, explicit rule.

 

This is simply something that was not clear in the published rulebook and was stated more clearly by Steve when he was asked.

 

I agree that it's ok for Steve to introduce new rules as needed....but I don't think that this is what is happening here. There's a difference between clearing up a misunderstanding (restating more clearly a rule that you had always intended to be in effect) and expanding on/creating new rules to cover situations that you had not considered originally. I believe this to be the former. You evidently believe it to be the latter. Likely doesn't matter much, as we both seem to agree that Steve is the force behind the rules and is able to make new rules or clarify existing rules as needed.

[zornwil]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Note: the following is just my interpretation of the reasoning behind the rule. While Steve is willing to clarify rules for us, he generally does not get into the philosophy behind those rules.

 

I think that the main problem here is that some folks are looking at how Skill Enhancers operate "backwards" -- they don't add a +1 to the roll...or convert a generic KS to an INT-based KS, they

 

There's a difference.

 

There's no game mechanic for changing the cost of abilities during game play. You can change the levels of abilities (Aid, Drain, OIHID levels, etc), but that's a fundamentally different operation. Skill Enhancers don't add levels, they reduce cost.

 

 

Again, this is just my interpretation of the reasoning behind this rule. Take it for what it's worth.

Okay, I can see that. If this is a clarification to that, then so be it. Otherwise it comes across as a new rule, which is okay, but isn't the same as a clarification. To your point, Skill Enhancers are not presented on the Skills List.

[zornwil]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

I disagree -- it's a new rule if it actively changes an existing, explicit rule.

 

This is simply something that was not clear in the published rulebook and was stated more clearly by Steve when he was asked.

 

I agree that it's ok for Steve to introduce new rules as needed....but I don't think that this is what is happening here. There's a difference between clearing up a misunderstanding (restating more clearly a rule that you had always intended to be in effect) and expanding on/creating new rules to cover situations that you had not considered originally. I believe this to be the former. You evidently believe it to be the latter. Likely doesn't matter much, as we both seem to agree that Steve is the force behind the rules and is able to make new rules or clarify existing rules as needed.

I deleted this message, see above as I read yours after I posted.

 

As to what we "believe", it doesn't matter unless/until Steve gives a clarification, but as you can see I think you're likely correct.

[zornwil]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

(snip)

 

So why, may I ask, is the rulebook any different? That's just what Steve Long is saying....it's still Steve Long. Is it the order in which he says things? Or the timing? Or is it the form?

 

Again, the rulebook is just Steve's attempt to communicate the rules that he has developed. Like any form of communication (especially when dealing with as wide of a subject as the full rules of the Hero System), there will be some things left out, some things which are not communicated properly, and somethings which are simply miscommunicated. The good news is that we have Steve right here to answer any questions that we have and to elaborate upon or correct himself where needed.

 

It's an interesting tangent.

 

Phil's perspective is reflective of a couple different trains of thought, I'm not sure which he's on but one of them is of the "the rulebook, not anything else, constitute core rules." I tend to be of this school, although I think there's certainly room for acknowledging what are clearly clarifications.

 

I think as to the D&D comment, I'd be interested in Phil's clarification on that, just out of curiousity, as it can be taken a couple different ways. I won't speculate for the moment.

 

There's also a train of thought that goes something like "the system isn't defined by the company or the developer, it is defined by its rational basis". I definitely believe this. A game system is a set of logical mechanisms, however idiosyncratic or unusual the logic may be. If an individual developer happens to do a bad job, that doesn't mean the actual system is messed up, it means the rules created out of it are. From this logic, it's always interesting to see what developers do, but it doesn't much matter in execution (it might a lot for other reasons) to people who play and like the system. Therefore rulings from Steve Long now or Steve Peterson in the past or whoever are simply well-informed rulings, but not intrinsically correct, even if they are the actual current rules.

 

Additionally, there's a question as to how definitive game developers ought to be outside of the rules as published. There's no wrong answer. There's a lot to be said for leaving ambiguity to individual interpretation. Some developers believe it is best to say nothing except in unusually compelling circumstances in order to let the community develop approaches, then rule based on those experiences (basically in other words an open-ended playtest). Some take Steve's approach and like to give all players guidance from the company, as a form of customer support. Personally, I support a middle path; I prefer a developer saying "this is my interpetation, but I'm not making a definitive ruling," except in unusual cases. But I really respect and like, even if I wouldn't do it that way, how Steve handles it as it is a service, and he spends a lot of time helping people for which he is to be commended. Not many people in his position are so open.

 

I do wish he'd discuss game philosophy in some contained setting, though. I think it would help people understand his rulings and thus help them apply those rulings in their games.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Why not just buy bonuses to specific Characteristics and/or Skills and apply OIHID? For that matter, you could make it really simple and buy SLs with OIHID.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Odd Skill Enhancer Question

 

Ah....I get it now. You're of the "if it doesn't say it explicitly in the rulebook' date=' it's not part of the game" school of thinking.[/quote']

No. I'm of the "if it doesn't say it explicitly in the rulebook, use common sense" school of thinking.

 

Have fun with that. Just don't expect others to be quite so....blinded by the printed word.

I see just fine, thank you. I am not blinded by a game designer's offhand ruling, as opposed to a rulebook which has been carefully written, proofread, playtested, revised, lathered, rinsed, and repeated through five editions. One of the most important reasons I play HERO is because it uses common sense, and it allows, and encourages, the players to do so. Steve Long has been wrong before, and he'll be wrong again. I fully admit that my common sense isn't perfect, but as long as Steve refuses to explain his, I'm going with mine. His argument may be right and mine may be wrong, but I know what mine is and I understand it. I don't know what his is.

 

D&D OTOH, was much more rigid, and many of its rules made no sense at all. The rulebooks themselves forbade any modifications, even when they made sense. Marketing genius, really. Everytime a new book came out with more options and variants, the players would fall to theor knees in gratitude. "Thank you for the additional slack in the leash. Thank you for the extra room in the cell."

 

I think that the main problem here is that some folks are looking at how Skill Enhancers operate "backwards" -- they don't add a +1 to the roll...or convert a generic KS to an INT-based KS, they Quote:

Originally Posted by 5ER, page 77

reduce the cost of certain Skills or Perks

 

There's a difference.

This is a logical argument and is certainly worth taking into consideration.

 

As to this actual question, of putting Limitations on Skill Enhancers, I'd probably never do it anyway. In fact it winds up being more expensive than Limitations on Skill Levels, so you can't say it's abusive.