Thinking about stats below 10

[MadCow]

What would you think about making the roll for stats below 10 to be 2+STAT instead of the usual 9 + STAT/5?

 

STAT 9 will need a roll of 11-. STAT 5 will be 7-. etc.

 

 

My reasoning is that (by the rules) even a very dumb INT 3 guy still has a fairly high 10- roll which doesn't make sense at all. Of course I personally wouldn't allow such characters in the game if it was obvious that they were munchkinning for more points, but still imposing some penalty to actually discourage players from doing so would be nicer IMHO.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

There are times I've wanted to run an experiment with making *all* skills start at 6+(stat/5), under the theory that it would make an 11- roll genuinely "career worthy".

[Black Rose]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

There are times I've wanted to run an experiment with making *all* skills start at 6+(stat/5)' date=' under the theory that it would make an 11- roll genuinely "career worthy".[/quote']

I think I mentioned this in my "Fiddling with Skills" thread, but I think having a lower calculated Familiarity formula - like CHAR/5+6 - would work for me. Give it a cap of 12- so that, if you really are obscenely bright, you can pick up a skill and make the connections so fast that you look like someone who has a great deal more training. CHAR/5+8 for 2 pts, maybe, and the full +9 for 3 pts. As much as I love HERO System - and I love it an awful lot - the skill system has some holes in it I'd really love to see get patched.

 

MadCow, at a 3 INT, your guy is comparing unfavorable to a sewer rat, PhysLim: Animal Intelligence notwithstanding. This guy is seriously dumb. I'd say your CHAR+2 would work, but I wonder if it might fall under the heading of "Unnecessary Complexity".

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

I believe the assumption behind beginning all Skills at 11- is that anyone, even those who aren't too smart, can achieve a competent level of ability in any field of study. Only characters with a pretty high INT (or other pertinent Ability) can get a slightly higher roll for the same price. You need an INT of -- what -- 18 before you gain any benefit from basing skills on INT for 3 CP instead of just buying an 11- roll? That seems fair to me.

 

If I WERE going to change the system, I'd say you pay 2 CP for a 10- roll, or 3 CP for a roll based on 8 + STAT/4. That way, with a stat of say, 10, someone gets an 11- roll for 3 CP buying a Skill based on that Ability, 12- with a 14 in that Ability, or 13- with an 18 in that Ability. That way, you get a bit more of a benefit for having a higher Ability that is related to the Skill, without skewing the system too much.

 

I could be way off on this, of course.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

What would you think about making the roll for stats below 10 to be 2+STAT instead of the usual 9 + STAT/5?

 

STAT 9 will need a roll of 11-. STAT 5 will be 7-. etc.

I like the idea, especially for NPCs.

 

As mentioned in other threads, I use 8+Char/3 for heroic-level games, because I feel it gives a better range of skill rolls. In most of my non-supers games, it seems like most PCs have most of their primary characteristics in the 13-17 range, with maybe one higher and one lower, so everyone winds up with the same base skill roll. But even under my house rule, your 3-Int guy would still have a 9-. It makes sense to bend the range a bit for the lower end of the bell curve.

 

bigdamnhero

"I can't keep track of her when she's *not* incorporealy possessing a spaceship."

[zornwil]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

There are times I've wanted to run an experiment with making *all* skills start at 6+(stat/5)' date=' under the theory that it would make an 11- roll genuinely "career worthy".[/quote']

I have been similarly tempted. it would also make "extra time" more meaningful.

 

The system has a double standard on skills in my opinion - in one hand there's this commentary that 16- is "one of the best in the world", on the other hand lots of characters can get to 16- easily at least with skill levels, to the point where this seems amost routine.

 

This results, for me, in a schizophrenia. I think skills and characteristics should scale like powers, in supers games that is, so that one can sink 60 points into a characteristic or into skill levels as easily as powers, without any real worry. But as indicated in another thread, I fully respect that there's scaling issues and it may be that the system isn't intended for that. The dual nature of how skills are rhetorically indicated to work as opposed to character reality is, I contend, a disconnect.

 

PS - I'm also considering the 2d10 idea - though that makes crit success/failure a 1% chance instead of 1/216. (PPS - which may not be good, IMHO)

[zornwil]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

What would you think about making the roll for stats below 10 to be 2+STAT instead of the usual 9 + STAT/5?

 

STAT 9 will need a roll of 11-. STAT 5 will be 7-. etc.

 

 

My reasoning is that (by the rules) even a very dumb INT 3 guy still has a fairly high 10- roll which doesn't make sense at all. Of course I personally wouldn't allow such characters in the game if it was obvious that they were munchkinning for more points, but still imposing some penalty to actually discourage players from doing so would be nicer IMHO.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with it as it stands aside from my comments just above. As you allude to, I think it's easier just to control for munchkinism.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

I have been similarly tempted. it would also make "extra time" more meaningful.

 

The system has a double standard on skills in my opinion - in one hand there's this commentary that 16- is "one of the best in the world", on the other hand lots of characters can get to 16- easily at least with skill levels, to the point where this seems amost routine.

 

This results, for me, in a schizophrenia. I think skills and characteristics should scale like powers, in supers games that is, so that one can sink 60 points into a characteristic or into skill levels as easily as powers, without any real worry. But as indicated in another thread, I fully respect that there's scaling issues and it may be that the system isn't intended for that. The dual nature of how skills are rhetorically indicated to work as opposed to character reality is, I contend, a disconnect.

 

PS - I'm also considering the 2d10 idea - though that makes crit success/failure a 1% chance instead of 1/216. (PPS - which may not be good, IMHO)

And what is wrong with the heros being the, "best in the world," at Skills they have likely spent 5-10 points on? Does the best normal in the world have even a small Ego Attack? A Mind Link? A Change Environment? I don't think the Character Point cost alone should go toward where a hero ranks in the files of skilled professionals. They are heros! If they weren't, they'd be scraping together the points to buy an 18 Int by taking some serious Psychological Limitations.

 

EDIT: P.S. - As a balancing factor, the kind of tasks a hero is likely to face--those things that really do make a difference in the campaign--are likely to be ones that require some really competent skill rolls. Sure, the hero can break into their neighbor's garage with a simple Lockpicking roll, but to get into Dr. Destroyer's hanger is likely to impose a pretty significant penalty (I don't think he got his locks from the local hardware store)!

[zornwil]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

And what is wrong with the heros being the, "best in the world," at Skills they have likely spent 5-10 points on? Does the best normal in the world have even a small Ego Attack? A Mind Link? A Change Environment? I don't think the Character Point cost alone should go toward where a hero ranks in the files of skilled professionals. They are heros! If they weren't, they'd be scraping together the points to buy an 18 Int by taking some serious Psychological Limitations.

 

EDIT: P.S. - As a balancing factor, the kind of tasks a hero is likely to face--those things that really do make a difference in the campaign--are likely to be ones that require some really competent skill rolls. Sure, the hero can break into their neighbor's garage with a simple Lockpicking roll, but to get into Dr. Destroyer's hanger is likely to impose a pretty significant penalty (I don't think he got his locks from the local hardware store)!

But you're missing that I'm not objecting to the heroes being best in the world in specific skills that make sense...but I"m pointing out that LOTS of characters can get to 16- easily. I think the obtainability of 16- in a NON-SUPERS CAMPAIGN as well as for normals in a supers campaign is way easy compared to a "best in the world" bar. I don't think the system is entirely sensical.

 

Now, I understand the notion - we want to emulate heroic fiction. And this approach is okay for more fantastic settings, I readily grant, though it means that significant numbers of NPCs as well as PCs are "best in the world" and the term becomes meaningless, although superlatives in high fantasy (supers or the specific fantasy genre) are so common they are generally rendered meaningless anyway.

 

If I went to 6+(CHAR/5), I'd have to rescale in a supers campaign anyway...but probably NOT in a gritty campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

I see Zornwil's point on most every PC obtaining the 16- or higher roll..

 

But from a Normal's POV, 11- is carreer worth assuming you're average Normal is built on 0 or less points. And there's Millions of them comapred to Heros. So 11- is a good gauge for Normals to work with.

 

PCs, on the other hand, quickly and easily breach the Normal level of things. Even in Heroic campaigns.

 

they also tend to do things with their skills a Normal would probably never try. Which leads to both a need, and a cause, for such a high skill roll.

 

Personally, I'm comfortable with it the way it is.

[MadCow]

Re: Thinking about stats below 10

 

PS - I'm also considering the 2d10 idea - though that makes crit success/failure a 1% chance instead of 1/216. (PPS - which may not be good' date=' IMHO)[/quote']

 

Another idea that I once posted on the RPGnet forums:

 

A critical occurs on tripets (i.e. all three d6 show the same value). Whether that critical is a success or failure depends on whether the roll succeeded or failed.

 

This brings the chance of a critical to 1/36 - and the better your are at doing something, the better your chances of getting a critical success. Likewise, the worse you are, the higher your chances are of failing exceptionally.