Skills

[Sean Waters]

I am not keen on the skill system in Hero. Not having a go at Hero in particular: I'm not keen on most skill systems. There is nothing wrong with 9+CHAR/5 and roll 3d6, but it doesn't seem to be that realistic in outcome to me.

 

Seems to me (and I've said this before - the skill system still has a 'tacked on' feel) that not enough thought and disssertation has been devoted to discussion of HOW to use skills.

 

Maybe The Ultimate Skill will address this, but in the meantime...

 

Many skills are not that random. I mean, you want to repair a computer, you probably know how to do it or your don't. If you do it is pretty routine, if you don't it just isn't really possible without additional research and advice. Unless you are REALLY good then you don't know everything there is to know. The process is basically:

 

a) Observe and diagnose

Carry out the repair

 

There just are not that many random factors. You may fumble the diagnosis, but really all that means iis it is likely to take longer. You might drop and break a PCB while you are slotting it in, but that's about it.

 

You might KNOW that the graphics chip is fritzed, but you don't have a spare.

 

Some skills require MULTIPLE ROLLS - the first applying knowledge, the second applying the skill itself. Maybe it is a mistake to limit skills to a single characteristic. I mean, if you are trying to pick a lock maybe you should roll 9+INT/5 + lockpick skill to identify the type of lock and the likely picking strategy and tools, then 9+DEX/5+lockpicking skill to actually pick it. You could even consider the 'diagnosis' roll as complimentary to the actual skill use.

 

There's lots more wrong, but let's go in bitesized pieces.

 

What do you think so far?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Skills

 

A more detailed skill system would be appropriate for those games where simply rolling 3d6 once doesn't satisfy, in a dramatic sense.

 

A good example would be a modern or near-future computer hacker game. "I rolled a 4 on my 16- skill, so I guess I crack the FBI's security and erase myself and all evidence pointing to me from their database." Eh, no good.

 

A good idea, in my opinion, for this sort of thing, or for any sort of climactic skill roll in any game, would be to work up a system like this for the skill rolls in question:

 

http://www.20by20room.com/2004/01/practical_causa.html

 

Special thanks to Nyrath for bringing this to the attention of the Hero Community.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Skills

 

If you look into the Skills chapter of FREd/5ER, you'll see that this is basically covered. A person doing a routine job might have an 8- or 11- in that skill. However, he also has the proper tools for the job, associated knowledge and professional skills, and can take extra time to ensure that the job gets done, sort of like "taking 20" in d20.

 

The advantage of having super-high skills is that you can pull off a McGuyver effect. Frederick of the Flowing Shadows, master thief with Lockpicking 22-, could probably pick a complex lock in one minute, using nothing but is wits and a fingernail clipping. However, Lando the Locksmith's Apprentice has Lockpicking 8-. He can pick that same lock in 2-4 hours with his master's full lockpicking toolkit, his lucky socks, and "Ye Tome of Lockesmything Knowledge and Tymes, 1472 professional standard edition."

[radioKAOS]

Re: Skills

 

I'm a little confused as to what you don't like about them Sean.

 

The "Not that random" thought on something like Computer Repair really just equates to a mundane task for the skill user. Either you have the Skill and you can do it without a roll, or you don't have the skill, and well... good luck.

 

I would say most people do not have a computer repair skill. These people probably have little to no clue as to where the power supply is, assuming that's the problem. Those who do have the skill can most likely change a power supply without blinking, and unless there were extenuating circumstances I would not require a skill roll for such.

 

I think we solved that on other threads recently...

 

As for the multiple skill rolls and skills using different CHA, I agree with it. It's one reason I liked the skill system in White Wolf, you could match up any CHA with any Skill and make a roll.

 

Another thing I liked about that system was how easy it was to set difficulties and measure success. One thing I find lacking in HERO skills system is the "how well did I succeed" rule...

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Skills

 

A more detailed skill system would be appropriate for those games where simply rolling 3d6 once doesn't satisfy, in a dramatic sense.

 

A good example would be a modern or near-future computer hacker game. "I rolled a 4 on my 16- skill, so I guess I crack the FBI's security and erase myself and all evidence pointing to me from their database." Eh, no good.

 

A good idea, in my opinion, for this sort of thing, or for any sort of climactic skill roll in any game, would be to work up a system like this for the skill rolls in question:

 

http://www.20by20room.com/2004/01/practical_causa.html

 

Special thanks to Nyrath for bringing this to the attention of the Hero Community.

Dark Champions has some good rules on that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills

 

One thing I find lacking in HERO skills system is the "how well did I succeed" rule...

Odd, I find that is built into the system. There's just no hard and fast rule that making a rule by 3 always give X Amount of information.

 

It's just subjective to what the GM feels is there, what the Player is asking for and what would work best for the story line.

 

I also allow for multiple skill uses, for instance if you're searching for information on say, occult happenings you can start broad with your KS: Occult and KS: Sorcery (as examples) and as the GM gives you information you ask more and more specific questions - like say you know it's Grey Magic, start searching for cults using that style, then cult activity ... etc... probably taking extra time and such.

 

There's a natural "How well did I succeed" rule in Hero, if you have a 12- and rolled a 9 you succeeded by 3 - what that means is up to the GM and the Story.

[Phil]

Re: Skills

 

Odd, I find that is built into the system. There's just no hard and fast rule that making a rule by 3 always give X Amount of information.

 

It's just subjective to what the GM feels is there, what the Player is asking for and what would work best for the story line.

 

Have to say, I find your response somewhat contradictory. You're saying a subjective GM fiat is built into the system? Well, technically perhaps, but what you're doing is justifying an omission. An intentional omission, to be sure, but still an omission.

 

I too think this sort of thing is missing, even only as a guideline. After all, we've got all sorts of fiddly little rules for radiation, using flight to push strength, etc. etc., would it hurt to put in a little table giving some indicative success levels? YMMV as ever....

 

Phil

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

I'm a little confused as to what you don't like about them Sean.

 

The "Not that random" thought on something like Computer Repair really just equates to a mundane task for the skill user. Either you have the Skill and you can do it without a roll, or you don't have the skill, and well... good luck.

...

 

 

But what about people who have the skill at different levels, or the situation where is in not mundane - you need to fix the computer so that you can use it to diffuse the bomb, or whatever.

 

OK, here's an example. The Electronics Expert with a 15- skill roll rolls a 16, and the schoolkid who has only been studying long enough to get familiarity rolls 7-.

 

'The kid just got lucky' doesn't seem right when you are talking about a primarily knowledge based skill like this. There just are not the random factors that would allow for this kind of thing.

 

There are possible fixes; you can say that a skill roll can ONLY be made by the PC with the highest skill and all others HAVE to act as assistants - effectively making complimentary rolls.

 

You can require the players to roll for success in reverse order, and assume anyone with a higher skill would also have succeded, but in less time.

 

The point is, that this is not something the system addresses.

 

One interesting fix here is to say that there are different base times for comlpeting the skill depending on your skill level, so 8- is an hour for repairs, 11- to 12- is 20 minutes, 13- to 14- is 5 minutes, 15- to 16- is 1 minutes and 17- is one turn, 18- or better is one phase. Faiures move you down the time scale one per one you fail by.

 

I mean there are lots of rules you COULD have, but they are not in the Hero system. That's my problem.

 

Not enough thought has been put into it. Wait for TUS. Grrr. Don't want to have to buy a book to give me something that really should be core*. I mean in 600 pages, we could only manage 4 sides on using skills?

 

 

 

* but, of course, I will.....

[Phil]

Re: Skills

 

There are possible fixes; you can say that a skill roll can ONLY be made by the PC with the highest skill and all others HAVE to act as assistants - effectively making complimentary rolls.

Or you can go further and say a minimum skill level is required to even make an attempt, or skills below a certain level attract additional penalties. Personally, I'm keen to add an extra dimension to the existing Hero skills system by distinguishing between Skill, Char and overall skill levels.

 

I mean there are lots of rules you COULD have, but they are not in the Hero system. That's my problem.

And mine. Totally agree. The powers system is at the heart of HERO, but the skill system just feels like it's tacked on as an after thought. Kind of annoys me that I may have to spend money to get a fix, but then I *am* too lazy to get around to my own

 

Phil

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

Minimum skill levels are a good idea. The only problem might be determining what a minimum skill level is, but more grittiness always means a tad more work

 

To show that they can be creative, Hero already has an interesting mechanic, working at it from the other end, in perception: if you add up all the modifiers and they are positive, you do not need to make a roll. If they are negative, you do. I mean, good idea, but it takes no account of what your actual perception is: whether you have 8- or 17-, if the modifier is +1 you automatically succeed. Not been thought all the way through, methinks...

 

Know what I'd like to see? Rather than a skill being 14-, it being recorded as +3.

 

Why? Well, then your skill itself would be a modifier, and make it more likely that you would not need to roll for a 'mundane' task - and it would build in a modifier for your skill level. A familiarity (at 8-) would be -3, so you would need at least 4 points of positive modifiers to make the skill routine enough not to roll, and that is on a straightforward task (say, taking extra time +2 and reading the manual +1)

 

When it comes to the roll, your skill is just another positive modifier. Seems this would speed things up and make it much less likely that we would get a bizarre result.

 

In fact I'd break it down further. Say you buy Electronics, you have a 15 INT and 2 skill levels, I'd record it like this:

 

Electronics +1/+2 (+3)

 

Why? Well, the first number records the contribution from your characteristic, the second your actual knowledge of the subject. I can see situations where, for a delicate bit of soldering, you might want to use your electronics skill with DEX instead of INT, and if your DEX is 10, that would be just +2, not +3.

 

Moreover would it have made that much difference to include a table:

 

Fail by 3 or more - can not try again until you have additional positive modifiers

Fail by 1 or 2 you can try again with the degree of failure as a penalty

Succeed by 0 You accomplished what you set out to do, but it took +1 step on the time chart

Succeed by +1 you succeed in the normal time

Succeed by +2 ....depends on the skill really...

 

I KNOW we can all come up with something like that, but I'd like to see it in the core rules.

[Phil]

Re: Skills

 

In fact I'd break it down further. Say you buy Electronics, you have a 15 INT and 2 skill levels, I'd record it like this:

 

Electronics +1/+2 (+3)

Just what I was getting at. There are times when I think you want to say one Swimming skill level combined with DEX 30 is not enough to go deep sea diving. Not a level of detail necessary for Supers, sure, but I think it adds a lot of value in more skills-heavy genres like sci-fi.

 

Phil

[kuoshu]

Re: Skills

 

Tell me if this is way off, or what I am not thinking of. I think I understand your "complaint" Sean, but I may be off, and/or my "modification/fix" may be off.

 

Your "complaint" with the skill system is that success is based on a roll against the characters skill rather than pitting that skill against the task itself.

 

But couldn't this be corrected in the following way and keep a bit more in line with the core Hero methodology than changing from a 14- to +3?

 

Give every task a target difficulty rather than just a situational modifier.

 

eg... This lock has a difficulty of 21 to pick. The 21 is based on the fact that the lock smith had a 16- in his smithing skill and succeeded by 5 in the roll (this allows for players to make things like this). The character then must roll against his lock picking skill 13- and succeed by at least 8.

 

This allows me to say things like... This lock was created by a lock smith with a 15-. He was making something mundane, and didn't try to tax his skills at all, thus he didn't even roll. The lock requires a 15- to pick. The character has a 16-, time, and the tools required for lock picking. No roll, time passes and the lock is picked.

 

I can then give situational modifiers, but success and failure is not entirely based on a random situational modifier. Completely mundane tasks may have a difficulty of 8-. You have to at least have some skill to accomplish the task.

 

Where have I gone wrong or misunderstood?

 

Kuoshu

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

No misunderstanding, all of that works just fine, the point I make is it is not IN Hero. Your system, and a number of others, would all add a lot to the skill system.

 

Basically my complaint is that there is no flesh on the bones, so everyone winds up thinking the Iguanadon has two little horns....or a couple of spikes on the end of its tail ...or, heaven help us, a couple of wacky looking thumbs....

 

There's nothing wrong with the system that another few pages of rules for mundane tasks, multiple rolls, target numbers (or at least a lot more detail on modifiers), dramatic resolution and so on couldn't address. it is not broken, it is just not finished

[kuoshu]

Re: Skills

 

I agree, in all aspects now that I've been able to compare it all.

 

The skill system is very simplistic, and that does indeed stand out like a sore thumb in a system with such a detailed and well thought out power and combat system.

 

When commeth this Ultimate Skills tome that you speak of?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

Mid 2006, apparently. groannnnnnn.....

 

http://www.herogames.com/Products/ultimate.htm

[Zeropoint]

Re: Skills

 

I look at the randomness of the dice roll as reflecting not random influences, but influences which are too subtle, or minor, or technical, to be accounted for by the GM.

 

For instance, if the computer has a burned-out power supply, I wouldn't even make anyone with the appropriate skill roll for it. "After a few minutes, it becomes obvious that the power supply is shot." If there is a spare available, it gets swapped out. Done. No roll.

 

But let's say that I've decided, or that circumstances dictate, that the repair should be harder. The technician with the 12- skill gets a 13 and fails; the kid with the 8- familiarity gets a 7 and succeeds. Does this mean that the kid succeeded due to random dumb luck? No. It means he succeeded due to pre-existing factors that we didn't know about before the roll. It turns out, for instance, that the problem was something that the kid had recently dealt with, and it was fresh in his mind.

 

Look at knowledge skills, for example. People who study a subject will all know the same basic information, but different details. Which details are known by which character is not something that can readily be determined before play--you can't go through every single fact about, say, 17th-century Spain and check off which ones your character knows.

 

As in quantum physics, you can determine the probablity of an outcome, but the actual result is determined by observation.

 

At least, that's my philosophy.

 

Zeropoint

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills

 

Have to say, I find your response somewhat contradictory. You're saying a subjective GM fiat is built into the system? Well, technically perhaps, but what you're doing is justifying an omission. An intentional omission, to be sure, but still an omission.

 

I too think this sort of thing is missing, even only as a guideline. After all, we've got all sorts of fiddly little rules for radiation, using flight to push strength, etc. etc., would it hurt to put in a little table giving some indicative success levels? YMMV as ever....

 

Phil

not really justifying anything ... well, maybe. you never can tell these days.

 

What I was trying to say is that making a skill by 3 can mean different things in different games. Exactly how much info does that garner vs a roll made by 5?

 

In a low tech campaign where less is known on, say, Radar, making a roll by 5 may yield less information that a super high tech campaign where the same roll is made by 3 - the assumption here being that Radar and its associated parts being part of Basic Tech Skills in the High Tech game where it's a specialized field in the Low Tech game. (A 'Difficult' situation in one setting may be a 'Mundane' or even 'Routine' situation in another.)

 

It'd be very difficult to subject the Skill Rolls to "How much is really How Much?" without covering every basic campaign style - something that would probably be bestdone in a more broken down grittier anlysis like The Ultimate Skill. In the meantime, and even after something like that - it's really up to the GM to determine what any given roll can yield information wise.

 

Edit: This also leads back, in a way, to "What does INT mean?" Is it Raw Knowledge or the Ability To Process Knowledge/Information.

[kuoshu]

Re: Skills

 

Zeropoint,

 

I like your philosophy, it makes sense and may have been part of the original thought behind the way the skills work.

 

For my initial games I am likely going to direct my players to your response.

 

Once I've formulated my "devil's advocate" response I will reply, for now I wanted to thank you for your viewpoint, and the help that it will be with my players.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Kuoshu

[Mike W]

Re: Skills

 

My experience with the skill system is that:

 

1. It is meant for quick and easy resolution so that you don't get too bogged down in die rolling. If you want to increase the "realism", you can simply break down the job into multiple parts and require separate rolls for each part(possibly with variable modifiers, depending on how difficult each step is). On the other hand, since Champs is the basis for the system and Superheroes is the base genre, a single roll is appropriate in most circumstances. Besides, it's easier to expand something than contract it(i.e. - it's easier to complicate it and add on than to reduce things and condense them together to streamline).

 

2. There are rules for making automatic rolls or getting huge modifiers to skill rolls if you will take extra time or are performing a routine function. But hardly anyone ever makes use of them. For instance, routine tasks get +3 to +5, which means even someone with a base 11 or less just got a 90%+ roll. And if you want to take a bit of extra time(taking, say 5 minutes to do something that would normally only require a turn) you can get another +2. Plus you can get bonuses for having good equipment, for having a good situation to perform the skill, or even for having "extensive knowledge" - which to me would fall under being part of a characters "specialty" within the skill(obviously this is adjudicated on the background). In short, a character with and 11- roll can easily generate enough modifiers to make the roll for a routine or even easy task all but automatic, if he's willing to take the time to prepare and be thorough. Let's also note that: "In ordinary situations, when a characteris under no stress or pressure and has sufficient time to perform a task correctly, he doesn't have to make a Skill Roll(or Perception Roll) - the GM can assume success for ease of game play."(p. 26, Hero System 5th ed)

 

3. People with familiarities aren't allowed to attempt difficult tasks - or have little chance of fully succeeding if they do. Again, GM fiat is applied somewhat, but I think that any "guidelines" given would almost certainly be adjusted by individual GMs because some would like the idea of the 8- kid being able to get lucky and defuse the bomb and others would cringe at the very thought of it. IMO, this would apply to any chart detailing a "making the skill by this much yields this effect". GMs would constantly tweak it to suit game/story purposes and probably ignore it at least as much as the current modfier table. Quite frankly, it's a call that we've been making in almost every system, for as long as I can remember. D&D we had to make the call. White Wolf we did too - and the idea of 3 successes being a "full success" went out the door fairly quickly. You rarely got "all" the information on 3 successes because the GM naturally felt that there should be some benefit to rolling 4 or 5 and would often hold a little bit back.

 

4. Finally, I would also support Zeropointe's philosophy. Not all people with the same skill rolll know the same things. They know the same AMOUNT, but each one is different. I work as an Enlglish professor and since we have the same degrees(by and large) we have the same or about the same skill rolls - but we each specialized in different areas. Some of us(like me) are Medievalists and could put together a course on Shakespeare or Middle English Literature easily, but wouldn't be as effective in a Modern Literature course. We could teach the Modern Lit course, but we wouldn't necessarily have the same depth of knowledge(and probably not the same number of teaching aids laying around) for 20th century lit. And the reverse would aslo be true. The skills listed in the book are VERY broad and cover far more material than any one person could ever hope to know.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

4. Finally, I would also support Zeropointe's philosophy. Not all people with the same skill rolll know the same things. They know the same AMOUNT, but each one is different. I work as an Enlglish professor and since we have the same degrees(by and large) we have the same or about the same skill rolls - but we each specialized in different areas. Some of us(like me) are Medievalists and could put together a course on Shakespeare or Middle English Literature easily, but wouldn't be as effective in a Modern Literature course. We could teach the Modern Lit course, but we wouldn't necessarily have the same depth of knowledge(and probably not the same number of teaching aids laying around) for 20th century lit. And the reverse would aslo be true. The skills listed in the book are VERY broad and cover far more material than any one person could ever hope to know.

 

 

...maybe you are not building yourself right?

 

I mean, I assume you have KS: English Literature and KS Medieval Literature, someone else has KS: English Literature and KS Modern Literature. Maybe the skills are narrower than you think, and they only really do what they say on the box. Without relevant complimentary skills you are not an expert in any one area of your subject.

 

That leads to an interesting cost point/one of you problems wiht the lack of detail.

 

If you do want to put together a course on Old Bill, which is better: KS EngLit 14- or KS EngLit 13- and KS W Shakespeare 13- (to get on average a +2 on your roll, and a +1 skill bonus to your EngLit roll.

 

The second is certainly more logical, and certainly costs a lot more, so why (on the face of it) is the first one just as good?

 

Well, presumably you should be applying penalties to your EngLit roll if the subject falls outside the mainstream utility of the skill/is a specialist area of the skill. How much of a penalty? I suppose it depends on the degre of specialisation. In this case, shall we say -3?

 

That way, a complimentary skill doesn't just add to the roll: it also negates potential penalties.

 

Thoughts?

[Black Rose]

Re: Skills

 

I really like Sean Water's ideas here. At the risk of shilling for other game systems : d20 does this, albeit to a greater extreme than I think we need. I do admit to liking the breakdown of "skill level" so you can do things like decide

• minimum "skill" bonus of +3 is required to make the roll with no penalties; every deficit point is an additional -1 penalty
  
• minimum skill level of +1 is required to make the roll period; don't have it, can't roll.

and others, of course. Then again, I like this for it's ease in adjusting. I could make skill bonuses cost +1/1 pt until the characteristic bonus is matched, then +1/2 pts after. It would cost 1 pt more to get to the base "3 pt" skill level, but you'd get payback after that, until you hit the wire.

 

Example: I have a 15 DEX, which means +3 CHAR Bonus. The Skill Costs would roll down like this:

Skill Level...............+/-.......Cost

Familiarity...............-3........1

Familiarity +1............-2........2

Familiarity +2............-1........3

Base Skill Level..........+0........4

Base Skill Level +1.......+1........5

Base Skill Level +2.......+2........6

Base Skill Level +3.......+3........7

Base Skill Level +4.......+4........9

...and so on.

 

Note that Base Skill Level +4 is the first level after the characteristic bonus is matched, so it costs double; all Base Skill Levels after would cost double as well.. To keep the costs fairly close to Core, I wouldn't triple them after +6, but it might be an option if needed. It allows various levels, including skill levels, to apply all across the board. It also allows the GM to make modifications to results based on where the bonus comes from; shorter time for Characteristic Bonuses, more info for Skill Levels.

 

Any thoughts?

[Mike W]

Re: Skills

 

Sean,

 

I agree to a point. I mean, you're right that most of us took enough of an emphasis in Grad School that we really should get an additional skill for our emphasis. But even still, I think the idea of buying a KS that applies to all literature leaves a lot of room for differening knowledge. It's still far too much for most people. For example, let's reduce it down to KS: Fantasy Literature.

 

I think a lot of us on this board could take something like that, at least at 8-. But while there would be certain things we have all read(Lord of the Rings, for instance), we all have favorite authors which we know a bit more about than other people with the skilll...and have other others that we just "never got around to reading much of". I mean, I've read a few Xanth novels by Piers Anthony, and generally enjoyed them, but I really couldn't tell you much about Xanth or the characters. But I could tell you all kinds of things about David Eddings' Belgariad/Mallorean series. And of course, there are a lot of other authors I know a bit about but never read much, or read the stuff but don't remember a lot, or never even heard of. I mean, go down to the local Borders/Barnes and Noble or other major bookstore and tell me how many of the authors with at least 3 novels in the fantasy section do you recognize or know much about. Given the size of the fantasy section, it's probably about half at best. Do we really want to get into having separate skill rolls for different authors? And what do you do with someone like Asimov or Louis L'Amour(westerns)? People who have written over 100 novels.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Skills

 

Sean,

 

I agree to a point. I mean, you're right that most of us took enough of an emphasis in Grad School that we really should get an additional skill for our emphasis. But even still, I think the idea of buying a KS that applies to all literature leaves a lot of room for differening knowledge. It's still far too much for most people. For example, let's reduce it down to KS: Fantasy Literature.

 

I think a lot of us on this board could take something like that, at least at 8-. But while there would be certain things we have all read(Lord of the Rings, for instance), we all have favorite authors which we know a bit more about than other people with the skilll...and have other others that we just "never got around to reading much of". I mean, I've read a few Xanth novels by Piers Anthony, and generally enjoyed them, but I really couldn't tell you much about Xanth or the characters. But I could tell you all kinds of things about David Eddings' Belgariad/Mallorean series. And of course, there are a lot of other authors I know a bit about but never read much, or read the stuff but don't remember a lot, or never even heard of. I mean, go down to the local Borders/Barnes and Noble or other major bookstore and tell me how many of the authors with at least 3 novels in the fantasy section do you recognize or know much about. Given the size of the fantasy section, it's probably about half at best. Do we really want to get into having separate skill rolls for different authors? And what do you do with someone like Asimov or Louis L'Amour(westerns)? People who have written over 100 novels.

 

It's a good point...several good points in fact.

 

What I'm suggesting is that KS EngLit SHOULD cover everything, BUT you'll be rolling at a penalty if you don't have the relevant backup skills.

 

An alternative to buying backup skills would be to better define the skills you do have. For instance when you buy a KS and each +1 skill level you buy (NOT bonuses from high INT) you can define one additional 'specialist area' for the skill. There's an advantage to buying skill levels even if your INT is high, and it allows you to better define the skills you do have. That cold work.

 

Maybe...

[Mike W]

Re: Skills

 

 

An alternative to buying backup skills would be to better define the skills you do have. For instance when you buy a KS and each +1 skill level you buy (NOT bonuses from high INT) you can define one additional 'specialist area' for the skill. There's an advantage to buying skill levels even if your INT is high, and it allows you to better define the skills you do have. That cold work.

 

Maybe...

 

That's got possibilities. Though to reduce the temptation for someone to buy a roll up to 22-, just to get the extra specialties, I'd probably add the ability to buy an "area of specialization" for 1 point.

[zornwil]

Re: Skills

 

...maybe you are not building yourself right?

 

I mean, I assume you have KS: English Literature and KS Medieval Literature, someone else has KS: English Literature and KS Modern Literature. Maybe the skills are narrower than you think, and they only really do what they say on the box. Without relevant complimentary skills you are not an expert in any one area of your subject.

 

That leads to an interesting cost point/one of you problems wiht the lack of detail.

 

If you do want to put together a course on Old Bill, which is better: KS EngLit 14- or KS EngLit 13- and KS W Shakespeare 13- (to get on average a +2 on your roll, and a +1 skill bonus to your EngLit roll.

 

The second is certainly more logical, and certainly costs a lot more, so why (on the face of it) is the first one just as good?

 

Well, presumably you should be applying penalties to your EngLit roll if the subject falls outside the mainstream utility of the skill/is a specialist area of the skill. How much of a penalty? I suppose it depends on the degre of specialisation. In this case, shall we say -3?

 

That way, a complimentary skill doesn't just add to the roll: it also negates potential penalties.

 

Thoughts?

Fantasy Hero proposes a tiered sort of penalty system for going more broad or more narrow than your Knowledge Skill for an Area. I apply it to all sorts of Knowledge Skills. In FH they did -5 per level, and you could adjust to taste. In FH the levels were such as (I hope this isn't too much detal, it was just a sidebar in FH):

 

world (e.g., Earth)

continent/region (e.g., North America, Pangea)

kingdom/realm (e.g., US, Roman Empire)

 

Now I'll stop there, just so I don't go too far, but I apply the same hierarchy, to, for example, sciences as:

 

Science

Physics

Nuclear Physics

Black Holes

 

Or:

 

World History

European History

Roman History

Roman Republic

Rome during the Etruscan Era

 

Or:

 

Stuff easily known to educated people of any era

Stuff easily found in reference books

Stuff found by inference from reference books; stuff found in specific "trade journal" or subject matter books'

Stuff found by inference in specific "trade journal" or subject matter books; stuff found in diaries, journals, arcane texts

Stuff found only in rare texts