Skills System - Out of Synch?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Again' date=' 22 points out of a 350+ character?![/quote']I was wondering that too. Is 22 points out of a 392 point character (incl. XP) like Cyberknight too much, or too little?

[Phil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

While I'm not sure I agree with the solutions, I do agree with the issue. Skills seem like an afterthought in the HERO system and do seem to be both over-priced in comparison with powers (particularly damaging powers) and balanced in favour of high characteristics rather than high skill levels. This is why in the fantasy hero setting I'm just designing I'm doing all sorts of tweaking such as change CHAR roll to Char/2, increasing char costs by 3x, increasing the range of skills, introducing a minimum -3 unskilled penalty and making most skills costs are going to be around 1 point per +1.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I was wondering that too. Is 22 points out of a 392 point character (incl. XP) like Cyberknight too much' date=' or too little?[/quote']

 

That would depend entirely on how often the skills are used, and how important they are to the campaign.

 

I always spend an inordinate amount of points fleshing out my characters. The issue is whether or not these points are balanced to other elements of the game. I would say no primarily because they are probably not used very often.

 

While a skill like 'Stealth' is probably used every game session by a character that has it, 'Boroque Literature' will be lucky to see a roll over the course of an entire campaign - unless a GM tailors his games specifically for his players and deliberately creates situations that the character can use the Skill. If you have a GM that is that artful in his story arcs, then such points costs do not matter because your characters' aptitudes will be useful, no matter what they are. However, if you don't have such a GM, you probably spent 3 or more points for little more than some extra description of your character.

 

Although I haven't considered how to implement it, I think there should be a system of reducing the costs of Skills based on their relative importance to a campaign.

 

Attached is my alternate method for die-roll resolution. I find it appeals more to the D20 crowd and have been using it in my recently started fantasy Hero game. Unlike your proposal, it actually changes nothing about the system or any costs. Just thought it might look interesting.

 

I like this a lot. If it could be possible to tweak the Skills system without altering the scales or points costs, that would be ideal.

 

There is one thing you might not have considered though. When you switch from a 'rolling under' mechanic to a 'roll and total' mechanic, you create a slight probablility shift.

 

Even though the numbers look the same, and the targets have almost the exact probabilities, you've opened the other 'half' of the range of possible die rolls. For example, If a character can roll their Skill at 11-, then rolls over 12 do not factor in. If a character rolls Their Skill of 11 plus 3d6, then all the rolls 3-18 are a factor. It doesn't end up being a huge difference in success and failure, but it is a difference.

 

However, I still like your method better.

 

The 9+(char/5) grants an 11/less by design, and so it's not a real deviation from the basic ideas of combat in essence.

 

The char/5 is to prevent rapid up-scaling, which I think char/3 would indeed do. A 20 INT is a +6 instead of +4, etc.. Step up to 40 and it's +13 instead of +8. I realize you'd like this, though, but I believe that's much more of a personal preference than widely desired, though of course I could be wrong.

 

I agree. One of the issues with the scale is that it either scales too quickly for high end Characteristics, or it scales too slowly for Normal ranges. I like the (Char/3) because it would make Skills and CVs operate on the same scale. However, has anyone ever considered that (Char/5) might be better for CVs? It would put more emphasis on skill, and be more in line with the rest of the (Char/5) systems like Skills and derived defenses.

 

For example, I have been swordfighting most of my life. I’m pretty good, but not a master. I have a friend who is astonishingly agile, one of those people who can watch someone do an acrobatic or dance move once and repeat it almost perfectly the first time, can catch almost anything that falls or is dropped, and hit small moving targets off the cuff. You know, the kind of raw natural talent that makes the rest of us sick. Despite the fact that he is obnoxiously more agile, and so fast that it is hard to see him move, he has a hard time beating me when sword fighting, and he has been practicing for years. The reason for this is simple. I know my way around a swordfight better than he does. I know how to keep control of the fight, and have the muscle memory to do it. I wouldn’t say he’s got a 20 DEX, but he’s clearly got a better DEX than me (and most people who aren’t in Cirque de Solei). He does very well against other fighters with his degree of training, but what this proves is that raw talent doesn’t go as far as one might assume compared to skill and know how. Conversely, one of the few people I train with that consistently beats me is an honest to goodness klutz. The man is always tripping, knocking over drinks, and has trouble tossing and catching. Yet he schools me because he knows his way around a swordfight even better than I do, and has over the course of 40 years developed an incredible amount of muscle memory for swordfighting.

 

Eh, it’s food for thought. In either case, I think Skill and CVs should be on the same scale and mechanic, whichever it is.

 

Edit: I replied to your previous questions as well, but the BB seems to have eaten my post.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

While I'm not sure I agree with the solutions' date=' I do agree with the issue. Skills seem like an afterthought in the HERO system and do seem to be both over-priced in comparison with powers (particularly damaging powers) and balanced in favour of high characteristics rather than high skill levels. This is why in the fantasy hero setting I'm just designing I'm doing all sorts of tweaking such as change CHAR roll to Char/2, increasing char costs by 3x, increasing the range of skills, introducing a minimum -3 unskilled penalty and making most skills costs are going to be around 1 point per +1.[/quote']

 

 

Maybe you should reduce the costs of Skills instead of increasing the Characteristics. If you increase the cost of Characteristics, that could throw everything else out of wack because they are balanced to the rest of the powers system.

 

I'd suggest having having 1 point grant 3 points for Skills. That should keep your desired effect, but without unbalancing the rest of the mechanics.

[Phil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I have a friend who is astonishingly agile [who] has a hard time beating me when sword fighting' date=' and he has been practicing for years. [because'] I know my way around a swordfight better than he does. Conversely, one of the few people I train with that consistently beats me is an honest to goodness klutz. [...] Yet he schools me because he knows his way around a swordfight even better than I do

 

Well, there are multiple 'problems' identified here. Firstly is the inherent clumsiness of a catch-all characteristic like Dexterity. Second is the difficulty of translating real life competence into in-game competence or incompetence - is he high dex, low skill? or low dex, high skill with limited DEX (only for purposes of agility) etc.

 

In general I do think HERO favours characteristics too much over skills. But then it doesnt take into account at all the fact the high Characteristic may not only indicate greater ability but greater pace of learning. Or maybe it does, but abstracts it. There are simply too many variables!!!!

[Phil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Maybe you should reduce the costs of Skills instead of increasing the Characteristics. If you increase the cost of Characteristics' date=' that could throw everything else out of wack because they are balanced to the rest of the powers system.[/quote']

 

The solution is staring you in the face....

 

I say increase Char cost by a factor of 3. You say reduce skill cost by a factor of 3. I say one of those approaches ends up with nasty fractions, the other just means multiplying everything by 3 - tomAYto, tomARto

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The solution is staring you in the face....

 

I say increase Char cost by a factor of 3. You say reduce skill cost by a factor of 3. I say one of those approaches ends up with nasty fractions, the other just means multiplying everything by 3 - tomAYto, tomARto

 

Not really. If you increase Characteristics by a factor of 3, your characters are going to be paying 15 points per d6 of damage, but able to spend 4 points for DCs or 3 points for a d6 of Hand Attack.

 

Presence attacks -which have very limited effects - will cost 15 points per d6, but Mind Control -which can be much more versatile- will cost 5.

 

Finally, a 20 DEX is going to cost 90 points, and a +1 to Speed is going to cost 30. Ouch.

 

That points Characteristics well out of scale to Powers. Are you saying that everything except Skills costs 3x?

 

If that's the case, adjustment powers are suddenly one third as effective.

 

I'm not telling you how to run your game. I just want you to be aware of the effects. This might actually be what you are after.

[Phil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Not really. If you increase Characteristics by a factor of 3, your characters are going to be paying 15 points per d6 of damage, but able to spend 4 points for DCs or 3 points for a d6 of Hand Attack.

Sorry to sound blunt, but do I seriously have to spell it out?!

That points Characteristics well out of scale to Powers. Are you saying that everything except Skills costs 3x? If that's the case, adjustment powers are suddenly one third as effective.

Are they? What if adjustment powers cost x3 but drain d6x3? Then they are 3x more expensive, but 3x more effective *and* retain the same bell curve as standard pricing.

 

As it happens this is largely irrelevant to my game as there is no PC magic, and NPCs cost whatever NPCs need to cost. In addition, this is precisely the sort of tinkering HERO is designed to handle - it is a toolkit after all. I didnt even mention the splitting of dex and int; the loss of ego, rec, ed; replacing SPD with SAS-style extra attacks and extra defences; the introduction of a two-tier skills system; changing the damage system to 0.5d6 per 3 points of STR... etc. etc. And you think I'm worried about a simply x3 multiplication?

[Mentor]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

... but' date=' Cyberknight spent a minimum of 22 points on that Skill set, which I would guess is simply to help define the character. While I'm all for doing such a thing, what I have a problem with is the cost. Skills, especially the ones characters rarely ever use and only have because they make sense for the concept should not eat up the amount of points that they do.[/quote']

That is a very good point. (I happen to be the guy who plays Cyberknight in Trebuchet's example:D )

 

Seriously, the solution to the perception of skill expense is a burden that once again falls on the GM, which is as it should be, IMHO. If player spends character points on a PC, then it is up to the GM to find a place for them to be useful. This can be ad hoc.

 

As an example, based on character background, two of our PCs bought horseback riding, which almost never comes up in a Superhero game. I had an adventure in in Mongolia which required the PCs to ride into the Gobi Desert in the Secret IDs as only the Mongolian guides could lead them to the site of the fight. Most of the team being non horsemen/women suffered a -1 or -2 to their CV (based on CON) due to the sores and fatigue caused by the trek through the desert. The two equestrians suffered no such penalty. The fight wasn't planned that way, but it was played out that way.

[zornwil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

While a skill like 'Stealth' is probably used every game session by a character that has it, 'Boroque Literature' will be lucky to see a roll over the course of an entire campaign - unless a GM tailors his games specifically for his players and deliberately creates situations that the character can use the Skill. If you have a GM that is that artful in his story arcs, then such points costs do not matter because your characters' aptitudes will be useful, no matter what they are. However, if you don't have such a GM, you probably spent 3 or more points for little more than some extra description of your character.

 

Although I haven't considered how to implement it, I think there should be a system of reducing the costs of Skills based on their relative importance to a campaign.

 

I am sympathetic here. I think there's 2 solutions, off the top of my head:

- one is to allow for "Background Skill" as a particular skill itself, just put all your background stuff there that the GM agrees is "unusual" or "not points worthy", make it a single general skill and increase it according to however you want this category to be effective

- simple allow this category of skills as a 1 point per cost of entry and maybe even +1 CP per +2 to the roll, or at least +1/1.

 

I agree. One of the issues with the scale is that it either scales too quickly for high end Characteristics, or it scales too slowly for Normal ranges. I like the (Char/3) because it would make Skills and CVs operate on the same scale. However, has anyone ever considered that (Char/5) might be better for CVs? It would put more emphasis on skill, and be more in line with the rest of the (Char/5) systems like Skills and derived defenses.

 

Personally, I'd sooner go for char/5 for CVs than char/3 for skills. But who knows, maybe /4 is best for both...

 

Edit: I replied to your previous questions as well, but the BB seems to have eaten my post.

 

I hate when that happens, my sympathies.

[casualplayer]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

As an example' date=' based on character background, two of our PCs bought horseback riding, which almost never comes up in a Superhero game. I had an adventure in in Mongolia which required the PCs to ride into the Gobi Desert in the Secret IDs as only the Mongolian guides could lead them to the site of the fight. Most of the team being non horsemen/women suffered a -1 or -2 to their CV (based on CON) due to the sores and fatigue caused by the trek through the desert. The two equestrians suffered no such penalty. The fight wasn't planned that way, but it was played out that way.[/quote']

 

I call that mighty fine GMing and role-playing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I like this a lot. If it could be possible to tweak the Skills system without altering the scales or points costs, that would be ideal.

 

There is one thing you might not have considered though. When you switch from a 'rolling under' mechanic to a 'roll and total' mechanic, you create a slight probablility shift.

 

Even though the numbers look the same, and the targets have almost the exact probabilities, you've opened the other 'half' of the range of possible die rolls. For example, If a character can roll their Skill at 11-, then rolls over 12 do not factor in. If a character rolls Their Skill of 11 plus 3d6, then all the rolls 3-18 are a factor. It doesn't end up being a huge difference in success and failure, but it is a difference.

Eh? Not sure I get you. A 11- in the standard sense is going to equate to a +2 in the alternate sense. Since without modifiers you need a 12 for success this means you succeed on a natural die roll of 10+ (10 or higher). A 10+ is probalistically exactly the same as an 11-. That means that, "rolls under 10 do not factor in," which sounds exactly synonymous to what you are saying about 11- rolls.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

See' date=' that's where we (Cyberknight's player Mentor and I) would disagree with you. [i']Nothing[/i] trumps concept in our campaign. He spent all those points because that's what an Air Force pilot should have. He didn't build a superhero and tack on a two-dimensional background as a pilot; he took a pilot and bought him superpowers. And because he built an Air Force pilot, he always gets the benefit of the doubt when it come to questions as to what a trained pilot can and cannot do.

 

This is supposed to be a role-playing system; and so far as I'm concerned mega-efficiency is only important when you're playing it as a tactical wargame (Squad Leader in Spandexâ„¢). Points spent on "fluff" like this are not wasted, because they enhance the role-playing aspect of the game. It doesn't matter if they seldom (if ever) get used because they make the character more three dimensional. I'd far rather play a character with Powers than a set of Powers where the character is a mere afterthought. So spending 5% on character building is never wasted points IMO.

 

PS: Zl'f is pronounced "Zilf." It's Russian for 'pixie' or 'sprite,' she being only 4'10" tall.

Well put! Just like Disadvantages should always be disadvantageous, but that doesn't have to be all they are; they are in great part if not mostly background and fleshing out of the character. Skills and such should be regarded in a similar light, rather than from just a, "how much do they cost," perspective. I'd rep if I could, but you've been too deserving, apparently.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I call that mighty fine GMing and role-playing.

 

Very much so!

 

That is a very good point. (I happen to be the guy who plays Cyberknight in Trebuchet's example:D )

 

Seriously, the solution to the perception of skill expense is a burden that once again falls on the GM, which is as it should be, IMHO. If player spends character points on a PC, then it is up to the GM to find a place for them to be useful. This can be ad hoc.

 

As an example, based on character background, two of our PCs bought horseback riding, which almost never comes up in a Superhero game. I had an adventure in in Mongolia which required the PCs to ride into the Gobi Desert in the Secret IDs as only the Mongolian guides could lead them to the site of the fight. Most of the team being non horsemen/women suffered a -1 or -2 to their CV (based on CON) due to the sores and fatigue caused by the trek through the desert. The two equestrians suffered no such penalty. The fight wasn't planned that way, but it was played out that way.

 

Wow, I want to play with you guys!

 

This is exactly how a good game should be run.

 

However, it is an example of adding things to the game that are not in the rules. Most of the Skills system is designed around the assumption that GMs will make these sorts of judgment calls, not only for modifiers, but also for game effects. Unfortunately, good (or perhaps a better adjective would be 'creative') GMs are much more rare than not, which is why I stand by the ground that the Skills system needs to be outlined in much greater detail - for all the rest of the GMs who wouldn't have come to those sorts of conclusions without a good set of suggestions and guidelines.

 

I really hope TUS will have a lot of information on each skill, the sorts of modifiers that could apply to it, and the game effects that could be derived from these skills - or the lack of them.

[zornwil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

People have very different playing experiences. Mentor's experience is great roleplaying, and I'm not intending to trivialize it when I say that I just haven't had all the problems so often listed with poor GMs or poor players. I've had one really bad GM, a long time ago, and maybe a couple problem players. And the bad GM certainly wasn't related to these kinds of issues but to basic ability to functionally drive a shared experience.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

However' date=' it is an example of adding things to the game that are not in the rules. Most of the Skills system is designed around the assumption that GMs will make these sorts of judgment calls, not only for modifiers, but also for game effects. Unfortunately, good (or perhaps a better adjective would be 'creative') GMs are much more rare than not, which is why I stand by the ground that the Skills system needs to be outlined in much greater detail - for all the rest of the GMs who wouldn't have come to those sorts of conclusions without a good set of suggestions and guidelines.[/quote']

Hmm. I think it is a pretty hopeless--not to mention counterproductive--task to try to redesign the system to make up for less than adequate GMing. Indeed I think a lot of the rulings we get upset about come about because people (probably all of us a some points) aren't comfortable about the level of ambiguity, whereas if we were a little more loose and on top of things that ambiguity would provide us the creative freedom for the kind of solution coverage we disire out of the system.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Very much so!

 

 

 

Wow, I want to play with you guys!

 

This is exactly how a good game should be run.

 

However, it is an example of adding things to the game that are not in the rules. Most of the Skills system is designed around the assumption that GMs will make these sorts of judgment calls, not only for modifiers, but also for game effects. Unfortunately, good (or perhaps a better adjective would be 'creative') GMs are much more rare than not, which is why I stand by the ground that the Skills system needs to be outlined in much greater detail - for all the rest of the GMs who wouldn't have come to those sorts of conclusions without a good set of suggestions and guidelines.

 

I really hope TUS will have a lot of information on each skill, the sorts of modifiers that could apply to it, and the game effects that could be derived from these skills - or the lack of them.

 

 

I wouldn't say good or creative... I would say "experienced" GMs. Granted, you can have a long term GM who is a total sh*theel, but IMO, GMs don't last unless they are doing something that appeals to the players.

 

What happens that a GM learns... is that it is "OK" to make such judgment calls. In fact, it is more than ok... it is EXPECTED of the GM to make such calls in concert with clearly expressed desires of the players.

 

To use Mentor's example... if I was the GM, I would likely have LONG forgotten that some characters had bought Horseback Riding as a skill. I would expect the players of such characters to say, "Hey... riding horses... cool, I finally get to use this skill. I always wanted to use that skill!" which is a not so subtle way of saying, "Hey, GM! Here's your chance... give me some cool horse stuff!"

 

Better yet, say I was the GM, and not even thinking about it, I state, "You'll be riding in Land Rovers out into the Mongolian wilderness." Then said player says, "Gee... that's cool... but how neat would it be if we got to RIDE HORSES out into the wilderness!" Hint, hint.

 

This kind of thing happens all the times in our games... players nudging plot and setting and situation elements because they want them in the game. Limited director stance. The GM is the one who makes the call on just how important those elements are to the game at hand... but the players should have influence in inserting them.

 

This is what we mean by cooperative storytelling... generating real role playing. The rules are only there to help set a baseline for those judgment calls... not to dictate the game. This is what experienced GMs and players eventually realize. The rules are not the game... the rules simply help adjudicate the game when necessary.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I kinda like the idea of having a Skill Value and a Difficulty Value. Its elegant and fits with the combat system perfectly.

 

With this system, I would make all skills cost 3/2, including background skills. All background skills would have to be based on a CHAR. Skill Value would be Char/3

 

This also works very well in a skill vs skill contest. The person attempting the skill uses their Skill Value +11 minus the opponents Skill Value.

 

Skill Combat!

 

A familiarity with the skill would allow you to perform the skill at Skill Value 0 (effectively 11 minus Difficulty value). Most Everyman skills would also be performed at that level unless one purchases the full skill.

 

Skill levels would work as normal. Their costs should be unchanged.

 

Difficulty values could run from 0 (Routine) to 10 or higher (Extremely Difficult). If the skill roll is reduced to less than 0 (a negative number) by the Difficulty value, a GM can rule that the task is impossible for the character...not even rolling a "3" will help.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

...GM who is a total sh*theel [ ]....

Damn! I don't think I've ever heard that particular one before. Thanks for the new expression.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

However' date=' it is an example of adding things to the game that are not in the rules.[/quote']

 

Nine times out of ten that's the difference between a mediocre (Eve "good") Role Playing Experience and an Excellent Role Playing Experience.

 

The Excellent one always seems to add things not explicitly spelled out in the rules. Just goes to show you that a book can't tell you how to play a game, just give advice.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Nine times out of ten that's the difference between a mediocre (Eve "good") Role Playing Experience and an Excellent Role Playing Experience.

 

The Excellent one always seems to add things not explicitly spelled out in the rules. Just goes to show you that a book can't tell you how to play a game, just give advice.

 

Indeed. The main book is simply the basic ingrediants one needs for a functional game.

 

Add spice to flavor....

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

My money is on Cyberknight because he can make complementary rolls to his Combat Piloting with Tactics 14-' date=' SS: Aeronautics 14-, Systems Operations 14-, and Weapons Systems 14-. Each of those 14-'s will average a +2 to his final roll. That will be an obscene bonus of +8 on average turning his 18- into a 26-. It won't matter that she has an unpronouncable name after that dogfight.[/quote']I think you missed my main point, or I perhaps didn't express myself clearly enough.

 

Cyberknight may indeed get several complimentary Skill rolls to increase his Combat Piloting roll, but he got those because he built an expert fighter pilot, not because he spent X points. In other words, his numerous connected Skills are the result of building a character who is a trained fighter pilot; and most experts in any field have related skills which they acquired as part of becoming an expert. So yes, Cyberknight would clean Zl'f's clock in a dogfight, but he'd do it because he's a trained fighter pilot, not because he can ultimately generate better Combat Piloting rolls than she can. He can use his Complimentary rolls to beat her, but he could also use his complimentary Skills to enhance her ability to survive a dogfight.

 

She can maneuver planes pretty well, but she can't lend that expertise because she lacks those crucial bits of knowledge. Say he has a broken right arm, and so she's flying the Sea Raptor when it gets jumped by a couple of MIG-29's. Because he's an expert on aerial combat he has knowledge which would materially improve her chances of surviving that encounter, and without ever touching the joystick he can tell her things about the enemy aircraft, their weapons and radar, and how they compare to the Sea Raptor: "Zl'f, when their missiles are 500 meters away, deploy flares and chaff, break hard right, and that'll break their missile lock. Then head for the deck and they'll lose us in the ground clutter. They can't catch us; our top speed is 250 knots higher than theirs, and we'll be out of their maximum missile range in 60 seconds."

 

She, on the other hand, can type much faster than he can.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

While a skill like 'Stealth' is probably used every game session by a character that has it' date=' 'Boroque Literature' will be lucky to see a roll over the course of an entire campaign - unless a GM tailors his games specifically for his players and deliberately creates situations that the character can use the Skill. If you have a GM that is that artful in his story arcs, then such points costs do not matter because your characters' aptitudes will be useful, no matter what they are. However, if you don't have such a GM, you probably spent 3 or more points for little more than some extra description of your character.[/quote']If you consider anything more than a two dimensional character a waste of points, you're probably right. But if a well rounded three-dimensional character is your goal, then I think those points are well spent. Certainly 10 or 20 points out of a 350 superhero isn't out of line.

 

BTW, one of the two horse-riding PC's in Mentor's example above was my own character Zl'f, who purchased both Riding and Animal Handler (Horses) to reflect her hobby of horseback riding. It wasn't because I someday expected Riding to be a useful Skill in-game. Both of these Skills were purchased with XP and not as part of her initial build, so I'm not claiming that fleshing out a character needs to be something they must have when they're shiny new characters. Real characters, like real people, should grow throughout life. A full 46% of her 54 XP (25 points worth) have gone towards expanding the "civilian" side of her life rather than augmenting her superpowers and combat skills.

 

Although I haven't considered how to implement it, I think there should be a system of reducing the costs of Skills based on their relative importance to a campaign.

If you think about it, this mechanism already essentially exists. Skills are usually far more important in a heroic or fantasy-level game than they are in a supers game. 5 points is only 1.4% of a 350 point super, but it's a full 3% of a 150 point hero. There's your relative costing difference - Skills are proportionately more than twice as expensive to a hero than they are to a superhero.

 

 

I'd also like to compliment you, Von Hase, both for starting an interesting thread and for making your case in a thoughtful and courteous fashion (even though I disagreed with your central premise!). That's what makes these boards so much fun; and why these kinds of threads are the Hero community at their best. Rep enroute.

[Mister E]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Here's an idea I got from one of my players:

 

On the topic of the two different Characters (one with a high stat, but only 3 points invested in a Skill... and the other with a moderate stat, but highly invested with Skills Levels in a Skill, but who has a lower Skill Roll), the Character with the extra Skill Levels but the lower Skill Roll should potentially be able to do more difficult skill actions as Routine, and thus not have to make a Skill Roll. The other Character with no Skill Levels but a higher Skill Roll is better at the Skill, obviously, but has less experience/knowledge, and thus should have to make Skill Rolls for tasks that the other Character would consider Routine.

 

Example:

 

• Spider-Man has a 35 DEX, and +2 Agility Skill Levels, and buys 3 points worth of Combat Piloting, giving him a Skill Roll of 18-.
   
  
• Captain Zero-G (a Pilot/Astronaut themed Hero) has a 15 DEX, and 7 points worth of Combat Piloting, giving him a Skill Roll of 17-.
  

 

In the theoretical situation where both Characters needed to land F-16's on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrier during combat, hypothetically it is reasonable for the GM to ask Spider-Man to make a Combat Piloting Skill Roll, but just let Captain Zero-G perform the task, as the Captain has extra Skill Levels in Combat Piloting, and landing an F-16 on the flightdeck of an aircraft carrier during combat is deemed routine for him.

[zornwil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

If you consider anything more than a two dimensional character a waste of points, you're probably right. But if a well rounded three-dimensional character is your goal, then I think those points are well spent. Certainly 10 or 20 points out of a 350 superhero isn't out of line.

 

BTW, one of the two horse-riding PC's in Mentor's example above was my own character Zl'f, who purchased both Riding and Animal Handler (Horses) to reflect her hobby of horseback riding. It wasn't because I someday expected Riding to be a useful Skill in-game. Both of these Skills were purchased with XP and not as part of her initial build, so I'm not claiming that fleshing out a character needs to be something they must have when they're shiny new characters. Real characters, like real people, should grow throughout life. A full 46% of her 54 XP (25 points worth) have gone towards expanding the "civilian" side of her life rather than augmenting her superpowers and combat skills.

 

If you think about it, this mechanism already essentially exists. Skills are usually far more important in a heroic or fantasy-level game than they are in a supers game. 5 points is only 1.4% of a 350 point super, but it's a full 3% of a 150 point hero. There's your relative costing difference - Skills are proportionately more than twice as expensive to a hero than they are to a superhero.

 

 

I'd also like to compliment you, Von Hase, both for starting an interesting thread and for making your case in a thoughtful and courteous fashion (even though I disagreed with your central premise!). That's what makes these boards so much fun; and why these kinds of threads are the Hero community at their best. Rep enroute.

I like the user experience point and would want to expand a bit, as I think another thing often ignored, almost as if it were somehow bad, is that characters' back-stories often aren't even fleshed out until well into play. Character conception is often not done out of the gate but as one plays and evolves the character, seeing how it feels to play that character. So it's appropriate to give XP for things you had but didn't really get around to fleshing out early on.

 

Agreed too that Von Hase has a good topic/personal approach.