Skills System - Out of Synch?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

The following is solely my own opinion:

 

I think the skill levels Mister E's referring to here are the ones built into the skill. For example, DEX 15 Guy buys Acrobatics for 3 points, and gets 12-. He later spends 4 points and now has 14-, which is to say, the base roll he bought for 3 points (12-) plus 2 skill levels. They aren't Skill Levels, but rather skill levels, thus proving that, if this were to become anything even approaching standard, we'd have to find better terminology.

Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense. I think I was confused by the example, which had Skill Levels for Agility Skills. I'm not sure I agree completely, as being more perceptive or intelligent can, for example, certainly lead to better understanding despite some lack of experience, but I do understand the argument.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I would just like to throw one other thing into this already very long' date=' very over discussed thread.[/quote']

 

Although this topic has been discussed at length, I think it is valid.

 

We’ve come to some interesting conclusions.

 

I think the general consensus is that the Skills System works, but it could be improved. I also think that this is a topic that requires players to stop and really take a look at something we’ve all played with so long that it just seems right whether or not it is. It’s hard to be objective about a mechanic many of us have been using for over 20 years.

 

This thread is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the Skills System is in alignment with the rest of the Hero System, not whether or not it works, and correspondingly what to do to make it align with the Hero System if it is not.

 

A lot of interesting perspectives and ideas have been tossed out, so I say kudos to everyone who has helped bring this thread to where it is.

 

Here are some directions it seems like we are all taking with respect to the subject.

 

- It ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

- It could be improved upon, but we should find a way to improve it without altering the current system’s points values or mechanics.

 

- It could be improved upon, and we should find a way to improve it by altering the current system’s points values or mechanics as little as we can.

 

- It could be improved upon, and we should find a way to improve it by altering the current system’s points values or mechanics significantly, but not entirely.

 

I think the remaining point to this thread is to try to come up with a solid conclusion, which I believe we are heading toward with each added idea and suggestion.

 

Thanks, zormwil for the poll. So far the results are very interesting. I’d like to see how it pans out. I find it interesting that no one thinks that Skills are underpriced, and the second highest response is exactly what most of us have been saying here… the skills need better descriptions both of their capabilities and the sorts of things that modify them.

 

Again, good work everyone. We’ve made a lot of progress so far, let’s see if we can come to a consensus.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

It seems as if the most popular direction is to try to improve upon the Skills System without changing anything that already exists. I’ll call this the Expounding Approach. Here are some things that the Expounding Approach might be able to use.

 

I think it would be a very good direction for someone(s) to take to try and set up more defined guidelines for Skills, especially on a skill by skill basis. Come up with a list of modifiers for each skill, detail situations that would warrant automatic success, and especially define a neutral roll situation for that skill. If we had these things to reference, our jobs as GMs and players would become a LOT easier. In those situations where there are no rules, at least we'd have more precedence.

 

I know the powers that be are hard at work on The Ultimate Skill, and this might be the very thing they need to add to the book, assuming they haven’t already. I haven’t seen the proof yet, but I’m fairly certain it isn’t going to be a Skills sourcebook as it is going to be a Skills Character sourcebook. If we push for it, we might convince them to add what might be one of the most valuable supplements they’ve ever produced. I know the delineated Strength and Objects/Materials charts in The Ultimate Brick will see a LOT more milage than just on Brick characters.

 

As for the Expanding Approach that is forming optional rules…

 

I had a thought about the Skill Level vs. Characteristic mod concept come to me. What if the characteristic modifier was conditional? We are in effect buying ranks in Skills when we pay the points for them. What if GMs decide that there are certain instances where Characteristics can affect the outcome less (Char/10 or not even at all), or possibly more (Char/3)? To do this, all you would have to do is note how many raw ranks a character has in a skill, and the GM can do the rest.

 

Denoting the ranks also helps set up the amount of description a character could get on a success. However, this would also require a table to outline just what each rank means regardless of characteristics. (However, I'm of the opinion that Characteristics should dictate costs and not ability. High INT characters learn faster, but they can't know a fact they haven't learned. High Dex characters can develop physical skills faster, but it doesn't mean they'll be a master swordsman with two weeks of training. Of course, this concept is WELL outside the scope of the Hero System, but it brings me to my next issue.)

 

Costs is the other subject that seems to be an issue. While we’re torn on whether or not to reduce them, no one seems to be under the impression that they should be increased. That tells me that most of us wouldn’t mind some ways to cut the costs of Skills. Skill Levels and Skill Enhancers are a great way to do this. Dark Champions has a Skill Enhancer called ‘Expert’ that allows a character to define the skills it affects by their function and not their type. What if it was ruled that ‘Expert’ could apply to a very broad set of Skills and even Skill Levels? This would allow characters with a clear concept to be built much more efficiently by having the enhancer pretty much apply to most of their skills.

 

Another method, and one that cannonballs into the metagaming pool, could be putting Skills in a multipower. Before you reach for that Quiver of Flaming Arrows, consider this – powers that go in a multipower are often put there because they can not be used at the same time as other powers. Attacks are a great example. Skills are seldom used at the same time unless complementary rolls are considered. Therefore, oddly enough, Skills are a prime candidate for a multipower. This method would require a shrewd GM, and players who truly are more concerned with the character’s concept than the character’s ‘power’ because they will have to avoid the temptation to max out every slot, and instead slot each skill as appropriate to the character. Since this multipower should not include combat skills (so as not to belly flop into the metagaming pool) I dare say we could call it a roleplaying multi. Here are some possible limitations for such Multipowers.

 

-1 Skills Only – Obviously, this multipower should not include powers, characteristics, or talents.

-1 ½ Non Combat Skills Only – As above, but characters may not place ‘combat skills’ in the multi such as Combat Levels, RSLs, Defense Maneuver, etc.

-2 ‘Background’ or ‘Roleplaying’ Skills Only – As above, but characters are not allowed to place standard skills in the multi, such as Stealth, Deduction, etc. The GM will be the final judge as to what can be included, but the expectation is to create a pool for all of those skills that are seldom used (if ever), but make a lot of sense for a character on a roleplaying level and in effect give a character a points break for good roleplaying.

 

-½ All Slots Must be Ultras – While few Skills are used at the same time, some characters may want to take this limitation.

 

As for the Slots... while this might not be a straight roleplaying method, it has merit. Give those Skills that are almost never used a 'Charges' limitation. A gracious GM might allow 'rollover' Charges for those rare adventures where you might actually have to use the skill one or two more times than your Charges.

 

There. My daily food for thought. Enjoy.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

To a great extent this can be adequately dealt with by combining some recognition of the value of Skill Levels with flexible GMing (although specific guidance and examples from Ultimate Skills would assist). I think you can say that in matters of piloting' date=' Zl'f is substantially better and rightly so with that super-superhuman dex! It's just when complications come up ("Oh dear. The starboard wing appears to have fallen off") that experience becomes more valuable than ability, and GMs should try and take this into account.[/quote']I think this is a great point, and addresses something discussed earlier in this thread: The assigning of penalties and bonuses during the use of Skills.

 

Say Zl'f with her 18- Combat Pilot roll is flying a badly damaged aircraft. Because she isn't specifically trained to fly damaged aircraft, the GM decides a penalty range of -1 to -3 is appropriate, and assigns a full -3. Cyberknight, with his actual training (i.e., purchased Levels), gets only a -1.

 

Addition penalties could be assigned for other factors, such as the type of aircraft (combat aircraft are designed to survive battle damage), so a civilian aircraft might easily garner additional penalties of -1 to -3 (improper equipment). Suddenly her 18- Combat Piloting roll isn't looking so good any more because she's just a (talented) novice; while Cyberknight's base 16- is suddenly better than hers because he's trained to do just exactly this.

 

This is of course incumbent on the GM, and I hope TUS will address in more detail what is involved in using individual Skills and adding +/- to the rolls. While the Skills system in Hero isn't without room for modest improvement, I still think it's one of the system's greatest strengths.

[zornwil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

It seems as if the most popular direction is to try to improve upon the Skills System without changing anything that already exists. I’ll call this the Expounding Approach. Here are some things that the Expounding Approach might be able to use.

 

I think it would be a very good direction for someone(s) to take to try and set up more defined guidelines for Skills, especially on a skill by skill basis. Come up with a list of modifiers for each skill, detail situations that would warrant automatic success, and especially define a neutral roll situation for that skill. If we had these things to reference, our jobs as GMs and players would become a LOT easier. In those situations where there are no rules, at least we'd have more precedence.

 

I know the powers that be are hard at work on The Ultimate Skill, and this might be the very thing they need to add to the book, assuming they haven’t already. I haven’t seen the proof yet, but I’m fairly certain it isn’t going to be a Skills sourcebook as it is going to be a Skills Character sourcebook. If we push for it, we might convince them to add what might be one of the most valuable supplements they’ve ever produced. I know the delineated Strength and Objects/Materials charts in The Ultimate Brick will see a LOT more milage than just on Brick characters.

 

As for the Expanding Approach that is forming optional rules…

 

I had a thought about the Skill Level vs. Characteristic mod concept come to me. What if the characteristic modifier was conditional? We are in effect buying ranks in Skills when we pay the points for them. What if GMs decide that there are certain instances where Characteristics can affect the outcome less (Char/10 or not even at all), or possibly more (Char/3)? To do this, all you would have to do is note how many raw ranks a character has in a skill, and the GM can do the rest.

 

Denoting the ranks also helps set up the amount of description a character could get on a success. However, this would also require a table to outline just what each rank means regardless of characteristics. (However, I'm of the opinion that Characteristics should dictate costs and not ability. High INT characters learn faster, but they can't know a fact they haven't learned. High Dex characters can develop physical skills faster, but it doesn't mean they'll be a master swordsman with two weeks of training. Of course, this concept is WELL outside the scope of the Hero System, but it brings me to my next issue.)

 

Costs is the other subject that seems to be an issue. While we’re torn on whether or not to reduce them, no one seems to be under the impression that they should be increased. That tells me that most of us wouldn’t mind some ways to cut the costs of Skills. Skill Levels and Skill Enhancers are a great way to do this. Dark Champions has a Skill Enhancer called ‘Expert’ that allows a character to define the skills it affects by their function and not their type. What if it was ruled that ‘Expert’ could apply to a very broad set of Skills and even Skill Levels? This would allow characters with a clear concept to be built much more efficiently by having the enhancer pretty much apply to most of their skills.

 

Another method, and one that cannonballs into the metagaming pool, could be putting Skills in a multipower. Before you reach for that Quiver of Flaming Arrows, consider this – powers that go in a multipower are often put there because they can not be used at the same time as other powers. Attacks are a great example. Skills are seldom used at the same time unless complementary rolls are considered. Therefore, oddly enough, Skills are a prime candidate for a multipower. This method would require a shrewd GM, and players who truly are more concerned with the character’s concept than the character’s ‘power’ because they will have to avoid the temptation to max out every slot, and instead slot each skill as appropriate to the character. Since this multipower should not include combat skills (so as not to belly flop into the metagaming pool) I dare say we could call it a roleplaying multi. Here are some possible limitations for such Multipowers.

 

-1 Skills Only – Obviously, this multipower should not include powers, characteristics, or talents.

-1 ½ Non Combat Skills Only – As above, but characters may not place ‘combat skills’ in the multi such as Combat Levels, RSLs, Defense Maneuver, etc.

-2 ‘Background’ or ‘Roleplaying’ Skills Only – As above, but characters are not allowed to place standard skills in the multi, such as Stealth, Deduction, etc. The GM will be the final judge as to what can be included, but the expectation is to create a pool for all of those skills that are seldom used (if ever), but make a lot of sense for a character on a roleplaying level and in effect give a character a points break for good roleplaying.

 

-½ All Slots Must be Ultras – While few Skills are used at the same time, some characters may want to take this limitation.

 

As for the Slots... while this might not be a straight roleplaying method, it has merit. Give those Skills that are almost never used a 'Charges' limitation. A gracious GM might allow 'rollover' Charges for those rare adventures where you might actually have to use the skill one or two more times than your Charges.

 

There. My daily food for thought. Enjoy.

Interesting ideas!

 

I do see from the poll thread that there's a lot of thought towards defining skills better and perhaps changing mechanisms.

 

While I agree there's some support for cheaper cost, I think you're making a leap in saying "most of us wouldn’t mind some ways to cut the costs of Skills." I think one reason that there isn't so overwhelming a response is because people are pretty aware of skill levels and the like.

 

Just minor notes, really, good thoughts on your part, whether I agree in detail or not.

[Black Rose]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

It seems as if the most popular direction is to try to improve upon the Skills System without changing anything that already exists. I’ll call this the Expounding Approach. Here are some things that the Expounding Approach might be able to use.

 

I think it would be a very good direction for someone(s) to take to try and set up more defined guidelines for Skills, especially on a skill by skill basis. Come up with a list of modifiers for each skill, detail situations that would warrant automatic success, and especially define a neutral roll situation for that skill. If we had these things to reference, our jobs as GMs and players would become a LOT easier. In those situations where there are no rules, at least we'd have more precedence.

 

I know the powers that be are hard at work on The Ultimate Skill, and this might be the very thing they need to add to the book, assuming they haven’t already. I haven’t seen the proof yet, but I’m fairly certain it isn’t going to be a Skills sourcebook as it is going to be a Skills Character sourcebook. If we push for it, we might convince them to add what might be one of the most valuable supplements they’ve ever produced. I know the delineated Strength and Objects/Materials charts in The Ultimate Brick will see a LOT more milage than just on Brick characters.

Actually, from what I've seen and heard, it sounds like it will expand on the detail for each skill's description. Though I could dream, there will likely not be any optional skill systems therein.

 

I think a simple list, filling in each possible roll from 6- to 20-, and giving an example of what is "no roll needed" and "minimum requiring roll", for each skill would be great. I also know this is a big hassle, and would (and ought to) vary from game to game. At the very least, knowing what is considered routine for 8- and 11- through 16- specifically would be great. Alternately, and I know it's a bit freeform, once TUS lets us know what all the skills are supposed to cover, each player could make a note of what is routine for each skill, the GM could vet the list, and then, when situations come up, everyone would know what needed to be rolled on and what didn't. And once you had doen this for several games set in the same world/power level, you'd have a good starting list for players to check against.

 

As for the Expanding Approach that is forming optional rules…

 

I had a thought about the Skill Level vs. Characteristic mod concept come to me. What if the characteristic modifier was conditional? We are in effect buying ranks in Skills when we pay the points for them. What if GMs decide that there are certain instances where Characteristics can affect the outcome less (Char/10 or not even at all), or possibly more (Char/3)? To do this, all you would have to do is note how many raw ranks a character has in a skill, and the GM can do the rest.

I think schir1964 has something like that; I'm fairly sure he's posted some of it over here.

 

Another method, and one that cannonballs into the metagaming pool, could be putting Skills in a multipower. Before you reach for that Quiver of Flaming Arrows, consider this – powers that go in a multipower are often put there because they can not be used at the same time as other powers. Attacks are a great example. Skills are seldom used at the same time unless complementary rolls are considered. Therefore, oddly enough, Skills are a prime candidate for a multipower. This method would require a shrewd GM, and players who truly are more concerned with the character’s concept than the character’s ‘power’ because they will have to avoid the temptation to max out every slot, and instead slot each skill as appropriate to the character. Since this multipower should not include combat skills (so as not to belly flop into the metagaming pool) I dare say we could call it a roleplaying multi. Here are some possible limitations for such Multipowers.

 

-1 Skills Only – Obviously, this multipower should not include powers, characteristics, or talents.

-1 ½ Non Combat Skills Only – As above, but characters may not place ‘combat skills’ in the multi such as Combat Levels, RSLs, Defense Maneuver, etc.

-2 ‘Background’ or ‘Roleplaying’ Skills Only – As above, but characters are not allowed to place standard skills in the multi, such as Stealth, Deduction, etc. The GM will be the final judge as to what can be included, but the expectation is to create a pool for all of those skills that are seldom used (if ever), but make a lot of sense for a character on a roleplaying level and in effect give a character a points break for good roleplaying.

 

-½ All Slots Must be Ultras – While few Skills are used at the same time, some characters may want to take this limitation.

 

As for the Slots... while this might not be a straight roleplaying method, it has merit. Give those Skills that are almost never used a 'Charges' limitation. A gracious GM might allow 'rollover' Charges for those rare adventures where you might actually have to use the skill one or two more times than your Charges.

 

There. My daily food for thought. Enjoy.

I really like the Skill MP idea. An idea piggy-backed off of that....

 

Instead of Multipowers, what about Elemental Controls? I'm thinking specifically of either "background skills" and/or concept skills; all the crud you ought to know about your job beyond PS: Job but don't, or Mr. Nifty's 80-odd science skills, whatever. We could go back to the Old Skool EC rules, where you pay full price for the most expensive one, then all the others are 1/2 price. Since skills don't cost much individually, you'd get a tiny little savings, but the more skills the better.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Say Zl'f with her 18- Combat Pilot roll is flying a badly damaged aircraft. Because she isn't specifically trained to fly damaged aircraft, the GM decides a penalty range of -1 to -3 is appropriate, and assigns a full -3. Cyberknight, with his actual training (i.e., purchased Levels), gets only a -1.

 

Addition penalties could be assigned for other factors, such as the type of aircraft (combat aircraft are designed to survive battle damage), so a civilian aircraft might easily garner additional penalties of -1 to -3 (improper equipment). Suddenly her 18- Combat Piloting roll isn't looking so good any more because she's just a (talented) novice; while Cyberknight's base 16- is suddenly better than hers because he's trained to do just exactly this.

 

This is of course incumbent on the GM, and I hope TUS will address in more detail what is involved in using individual Skills and adding +/- to the rolls. While the Skills system in Hero isn't without room for modest improvement, I still think it's one of the system's greatest strengths.

 

So, in a way, you are suggesting that purchased Skill Levels act sort of like free PSL's?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

And let me add that I do think the skills system needs some love.

 

We have a PC in our group that has Tracking for his Smell/Taste Group. He also has the Tracking skill at a 14-. Obviously, he can track things pretty damn well. But the rules for using that Sense Modifer OR the Tracking Skill are virtually non existant. The book pretty much just tells you you can track by smell with the sensse modifer and that the skill tells you how to follow and/or conceal a trail.

 

Now lets compare to d20. For the Tracking Feat/Scent ability you get a difficulty based: the amount of time passed, how fast you are going, the firmness of the ground, current weather conditions, the size of your quarry, the number of targets in the party you are tracking, the direction the wind is blowing, present visibility conditions, and wether or not your opponent was trying to hid thier trail!

 

HERO system tells you what you can do with the Tracking Skill, but d20 actully tells you HOW to do it.

[Phil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

OK people, this thread ends now. Someone's suggested that d20 does something better than HERO, and it's not Magic Missile. It's time to move on....

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

If I say I'm sorry will you put down the rope?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

So' date=' in a way, you are suggesting that purchased Skill Levels act sort of like free PSL's?[/quote']Well, no, because they're not free. What I'm suggesting is that purchased Skill levels can also be used to counter penalties to a Skill roll (which is essentially how they work now), but raw Skill based on Characteristics perhaps should not. My basic premise is that a character who has actually purchased levels with a Skill should gain some benefit beyond what a character who has a high Skill roll based solely on a high Characteristic gets. I think the untrained character shouldn't get certain benefits (of the doubt?) available to a character whose score comes from levels and not solely from having a high DEX, INT, PRE, or whatever. What that additional benefit should be is (at this point) at the discretion of the GM. (Maybe "untrained" should be an automatic -2 to rolls?)

 

In my previous example, Zl'f gets an 18- with Combat Piloting only because she has a 43 DEX; but she also has a 22- with Acrobatics because she bought 4 levels with Acrobatics (she also has 2 Overall Levels). Even if she was DEX-drained down to only DEX 10 she could still get a 17- Acrobatics roll!

[Bloodstone]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Well, yes not FREE, but at no additional cost above and beyond the skill level incvestment.

 

You spend 3 pts to get the base skill. Something goes wrong and you end up suffering a -5 penalty. Because you have no addtional levels with the skill, you don't handle the problem so well and suffer the full -5. This hurts.

 

But, if you had purchased, say, +3 levels with the skill you would not only have a roll that was 3 higher, you would also effectivly have 3 PSL's to help offset the penalty. Training and experience has not only made you better in general, but taught you how to react to a variety of strange and unusual circumstances.

 

Right?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

And let me add that I do think the skills system needs some love.

 

We have a PC in our group that has Tracking for his Smell/Taste Group. He also has the Tracking skill at a 14-. Obviously, he can track things pretty damn well. But the rules for using that Sense Modifer OR the Tracking Skill are virtually non existant. The book pretty much just tells you you can track by smell with the sensse modifer and that the skill tells you how to follow and/or conceal a trail.

 

Now lets compare to d20. For the Tracking Feat/Scent ability you get a difficulty based: the amount of time passed, how fast you are going, the firmness of the ground, current weather conditions, the size of your quarry, the number of targets in the party you are tracking, the direction the wind is blowing, present visibility conditions, and wether or not your opponent was trying to hid thier trail!

 

HERO system tells you what you can do with the Tracking Skill, but d20 actully tells you HOW to do it.

 

While I agree in some ways... understand that your are talking about two different levels of a system.

 

Hero simply defines the Mechanic... roll this... it does X. So does d20... roll this, it does X.

 

The modifiers are not mechanics, but Game Rules. They are great for defining the "how" but we have to realize that the "how" is very game/setting dependent. "Firmness of ground" is critical in some games... but what if someone is buying the tracking skill to simulate "All living beings leave anti-photons in their wake, and I can see them!" as in some wild supers game.

 

Hero, in many ways, just CAN'T define all the "how"s because to do so is to define the kind of game being played. Hero is a toolkit... not a game. The strength of this is that it can do most anything... the weakness of it is that it is a LOT OF WORK on the part of GM and players to define all the "hows" of that game.

[atlascott]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Really interesting ideas on this thread!

 

Doesn't EVERYONE already play with 'degrees of success'--i.e., the more you make your roll by, the better the success is? I always have, tho' now that you mention it, I do not remember it being in the rules. It should be added, but left subjective--let the GM run with it.

 

A problem with the paradigm suggested where only the most brilliant of the brilliant can do difficult things, but always succeed at the easy stuff, and the average can never aspire to the greatest of challenges: it is a game. It isn't fun to tell players that, even tho' they spent points, they have no chance at doing a diffcult thing without hanging up their cape.

 

As far as 'mimicking reality'--I would perhaps agree to modifying the skill system along those lines if I were running "LabTech--The Campaign"--but in the course of a heroic or superheroic game, diffculty modifiers do just fine. A mediocre skill with a great roll still doesnt hit the target number for something with a really tough modifier. And a good GM isn't going to allow a Middle-Ages 'scientist' to create a spaceship with a good roll--or series of good rolls--anyway.

 

The bell shaped curve takes care of alot, too. Most rolls are right in the middle, where they are supposed to be--most results are 'average' for the super skilled and the mediocre, just as they ought to be. The most skilled practitioners of a skill just have a much better average outcome than a medicore practitioner of a skill. So as it is set up, a very skilled practitioner is already going to routinely succeed at tasks that a mediocre talent would need an exceptional roll to accomplish.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I do use a "margin of success / margin of failure" sort of thing -- just ask my players whether or not my usual statement is "Make your xxxxx roll, and tell me how much you made it by, or how much you missed it by" -- but it's not a hard-and-fast, charted-out sort of thing. It's something that I do by feel, in each individual situation.

 

Also, if someone rolls a 3, it's a spectacular success of some kind, yielding extremely favorable results. For example, if it's an attack roll in combat, the player rolling the 3 doesn't roll dice for damage...they automatically do maximum. On the other hand, an 18 is a spectacular failure of some sort. The last time that happened in one of my games, it was me, as the GM, that rolled that -- for a VIPER agent. (I was making the Activation Roll for his blaster when I rolled the 18. So I decided the blaster, which was obviously still on the experimental side [an Activation roll] blew up in his hands, with all the unused charges remaining in the power pack detonating.)

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Well, yes not FREE, but at no additional cost above and beyond the skill level incvestment.

 

You spend 3 pts to get the base skill. Something goes wrong and you end up suffering a -5 penalty. Because you have no addtional levels with the skill, you don't handle the problem so well and suffer the full -5. This hurts.

 

But, if you had purchased, say, +3 levels with the skill you would not only have a roll that was 3 higher, you would also effectivly have 3 PSL's to help offset the penalty. Training and experience has not only made you better in general, but taught you how to react to a variety of strange and unusual circumstances.

 

Right?

Understand that I'm only thinking out loud here, not making some proposal for a rules change.

 

I would like to see some minor benefit to actually purchasing Skill Levels in a given Skill above and beyond the die roll. It would be nice to find a way to reward players (and their characters) who actually spend CP on making themselves skillful, as opposed to simply getting a high Skill roll as a virtual "side effect" of having a high Characteristic roll. I don't have any problem with a novice being absurdly skilled on a CHAR-based Skill roll; but it would be nice if the character who actually paid CP for +3 to his roll gets something from that even if his net Skill roll is lower than the novice's due to lower Characteristics.

 

How to implement that, I don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out there for greater minds than mine to cogitate.

[Von Hase]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I really like the Skill MP idea. An idea piggy-backed off of that....

 

Instead of Multipowers, what about Elemental Controls? I'm thinking specifically of either "background skills" and/or concept skills; all the crud you ought to know about your job beyond PS: Job but don't, or Mr. Nifty's 80-odd science skills, whatever. We could go back to the Old Skool EC rules, where you pay full price for the most expensive one, then all the others are 1/2 price. Since skills don't cost much individually, you'd get a tiny little savings, but the more skills the better.

 

Oooo. I like that too. Unlike the multi, an EC would require players to have a theme to the skills put in it. That takes a little pressure off of the GM to regulate somethting that could easily be abused, and it is more appropriate. Nice!

 

That got me thinking. A Power Pool could also be used, and might end up being even more appropriate for 'background' skills. It would take some interesting limitations. For a pool to simulate a broad set of background skills, just define the pool to only be used for them. However, (this is a power dive into the metagaming pool...) the Power Pool could only be used for a list of skills at levels appropriate to the character's description, and only at those levels - effectively allowing a character to have all appropriate skills for the cost of their highest skill plus the control cost.

 

I think between Levels, Enhancers, and Frameworks, we've got the costs issue taken care of for those who think it is problematic.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

And let me add that I do think the skills system needs some love.

 

We have a PC in our group that has Tracking for his Smell/Taste Group. He also has the Tracking skill at a 14-. Obviously, he can track things pretty damn well. But the rules for using that Sense Modifer OR the Tracking Skill are virtually non existant. The book pretty much just tells you you can track by smell with the sensse modifer and that the skill tells you how to follow and/or conceal a trail.

 

Now lets compare to d20. For the Tracking Feat/Scent ability you get a difficulty based: the amount of time passed, how fast you are going, the firmness of the ground, current weather conditions, the size of your quarry, the number of targets in the party you are tracking, the direction the wind is blowing, present visibility conditions, and wether or not your opponent was trying to hid thier trail!

 

HERO system tells you what you can do with the Tracking Skill, but d20 actully tells you HOW to do it.

For one thing, I believe there is mention of using the Tracking Skill and a Tracking Sense (Per roll) as Complimentary, which I believe gives you most of what you were looking for in the first major paragraph.

 

As for D&D, I'd go so far as to say it just about tells you exactly how you must use Tracking (especially with all the snively D20 players out there who are going to say, "but according to the book that's only a -3!"). I'm must happier with how Hero treats it, myself. A few more suggestions as to what conditions you could use for modifiers might be a nice compliment, but that's close enough for my taste.

[Black Rose]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Understand that I'm only thinking out loud here, not making some proposal for a rules change.

 

I would like to see some minor benefit to actually purchasing Skill Levels in a given Skill above and beyond the die roll. It would be nice to find a way to reward players (and their characters) who actually spend CP on making themselves skillful, as opposed to simply getting a high Skill roll as a virtual "side effect" of having a high Characteristic roll. I don't have any problem with a novice being absurdly skilled on a CHAR-based Skill roll; but it would be nice if the character who actually paid CP for +3 to his roll gets something from that even if his net Skill roll is lower than the novice's due to lower Characteristics.

 

How to implement that, I don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out there for greater minds than mine to cogitate.

About the best way I can think of to do that would be to borrow a page from BESM/WoD/Fuzion/whatever, and have the "skill level" determine ....

 

Holy crud, that's it!!!!! Geez, I can't believe I've been this dim!

 

Okay, here goes: the "level of your skill" (how much skill you bought) determines your actual depth of knowledge in the given skill; level of experience in weird crap, number of funky anecdotes, exposure to non-standard situations, stuff like that. Your characteristics can help make your roll better but it can't help you know more about a given subject than you actually know.

 

In WoD, your level of knowledge/expertise/whatever is determined by how much you bought (one to five dots, if you don't know). While your stats might make the dice pool bigger, if you only have one dot in Linguistics, your five dots in Intelligence doesn't let you know more languages; you'll be hell on wheels with your second language, though.

 

So, how to use it with HERO? The only idea I have is to use my earlier idea, modified slightly:

 

Take your skill roll, and next to it, note the "level of your skill" you have purchased, like this:

 

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- (Lvl 2*).

 

Captain Zero-G (a Pilot/Astronaut themed Hero) has a 15 DEX, and 13 points worth of Combat Piloting, giving him a Skill Roll of 17- (Lvl 7**).

 

This way you have your roll listed with no distractions, but right next to it you have an indicator of your actual skill level, as opposed to your adjusted skill level; adjusted for superior intellect/charm/coordination.

 

 

*The Lvl 2 in this case is Familiarity plus the "3 pt" skill level; as much as I hate to use the system which must not be named, Fuzion did this pretty well. But I like our rolling convention better.

 

** In this case of rather extreme skill, I think a brief list of "routine uses" would be a good idea. I know it sounds kind of MUX-y, but a brief narrative description of each of your skills really helps you visualize your character better, as well as explain him to your GM.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Okay' date=' here goes: the "level of your skill" (how much skill you bought) determines your actual depth of knowledge in the given skill; level of experience in weird crap, number of funky anecdotes, exposure to non-standard situations, stuff like that. Your characteristics can help make your roll better but it can't help you know more about a given subject than you [i']actually[/i] know.

I must admit, the more I hear ideas like this, and the more I think about it, the more I'm coming to like it.

[Black Rose]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I like it because, while it adds to the detail, it doesn't really change the costs or the format in any other way. If you decided to use this "optional rule" it wouldn't invalidate any published characters; well, beyond having to go through and make note of what "level" their skills are at.

 

And if this idea flies, then maybe I can interest you all in something a little further out... divorcing the skill roll from the skill level. You have your skill roll, which determines how effective you are at putting your skill to use, and your skill level, which represents how much depth you have in the skill itself. You could have KS: Quantum Physics 12- (4) or KS: Quantum Physics 14- (2); the former would have more depth of knowledge, but the latter would be able to express it's more "limited" information faster.

 

Does anyone like that idea at all? I admit I stole the base concept from GURPS' method of handling Psionics and Superpowers - a power level and a skill level - but I really think it works well for this. And while I admit this sounds like fiddling for fiddling's sake, I think it's time the Skill System was reworked. It doesn't need to be replaced entirely, but a good hard look and maybe some new parts wouldn't hurt.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

It's an interesting idea, BR, and not without merit. But I'm not sure it would actually be worth the trouble in play. In my experience most campaigns simply don't use Skills in that kind of detail, particularly esoteric Knowledge/Professional Skills. YMMV, of course.

[Agent X]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

I don't think a skills system should base what can be done on the number of skill levels a character has while basing much of the roll on characteristics. It'll create some odd issues, like the guy who is merely competent in a given skill but will succeed every time while the guy who has enormous specialized knowledge of the skill will succeed less often at simple tasks than the first guy.

[Lucius]

Re: Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

Here I go again, responding before reading to the end of the posts. But I just had to respond to this one.

 

When three characters with different Skill ratings all make their roll by 2, who performed better? How about if they all rolled their Skill exactly? We’re back to interpretation.

 

When one character rolls 55 Stun with an attack and another rolls 38, we clearly know who performed better.

 

An if three characters roll 55 Stun with their attacks, who performed better?

 

If one character has fewer dice but rolled better, is his "performance" better or worse than that of someone with more dice who happenned not to roll so well?

 

 

And if one character makes a Skill roll by 2 and another by 4, do we clearly know who performed better?

 

To answer the first question directly - all 3 characters (all other things being equal) performed equally well. Just as comparing two characters who rolled 55 Stun, both did equally well. Of course, they probably won't NEXT time they use that skill; just as the person with fewer dice of attack probably won't equal the guy with more dice the next time they both make an attack.

 

 

Rolling under a certain number on a set of dice is counter to the positive integers upon which the rest of the Hero System is based where more means more, not less means more under variable and subjective conditions.

 

No. Rolling under a certain number on a set of dice is exactly what attack rolls, perception rolls, characteristic rolls, and activations rolls do - it is not "counter" to the Hero System, it is absolutely basic and intrinsic to the Hero System.

 

 

While powers can be designed to simulate whatever the player desires, Skills can not. The operating logic behind having generic powers that are described by special effects is totally lost on the Skills System. For example, a character defines their Lightning Blast as an EB with electrical effects, advantages, and limitations rather than buying a power called Lightning Blast. This is because there are too many possible powers, yet many of them perform the same sorts of functions.

 

Unfortunately, Skills don't function in the same way. While one character might be best described with ‘Bugging’, another might be better described with ‘Surveillance’. A character might be best described by ‘Bureaucratics’ while another is better described by ‘Administration’. While these distinctions seem subtle, they are the same as the difference between Lightning Bolt and Electrical Arc – one that should be defined by the player to make their character perform exactly as they wish.

 

Gotta love it when someone says the system is "broken" and proposes to "fix" it by introducing elements that are already there in the system.

 

What you're describing as how the system works, isn't. Not unless there's something wrong with my copy of FRED. What you're describing as how it should work, is pretty close (okay, not exact) to how it DOES work. If anything, the player has MORE leeway with skills than with powers. You can freely invent your own skill and make it as narrow or as broad as you like.

 

Many years ago, when all we had was the very first Champions, I even had a character who had "Weather Control" as a skill - becuase that was the only thing I could see at the time to get what I wanted. We didn't have "Change Environment" for instance. I STILL sometimes think that simulated what I wanted better than when I rewrote it later....I was NOT going for something like the X-Men character Storm, "I want a fogbank here in this room right now," it was "Hey, can you get us a sunny day next Saturday for the picnic?"

 

Now, maybe you're right that it should be explicitly permitted to create subtly different versions of skills already in the book. But mostly this looks to me like trying to put "Costs no END" on your Life Support; i.e. going to great lengths to get what you already have.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks I'm going to regret getting involved.....

[Lucius]

Skills System - Out of Synch?

 

 

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.

 

.

 

 

Okay, I think you may be on to something here.

 

LA

p