Does this make ANY sense?

[Soleil Noir]

(Sorry to be making the same post in two different sections; but this is a more general "HERO game mechanics" question but I accidentally posted it to the

"Champions" section...)

 

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

 

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills, INCLUDING the Background Skills, and it's not considered "unbalancing"! I asked Mr. Long where the imbalance was, and wasn't this simply promoting stat inflation, and got the standard "I don't answer game design/philosophy" response.

 

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?

 

And yes, I know that I'm completely at liberty to disregard Mr. Long and play the game as I see fit, thanks very much. I'm just wondering: since Steve won't, does anyone else here see his point of view and can make the case as to how 5 point Levels boosting background skills is unbalancing, but 5 points spent on INT to do the same thing isn't?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Well, in Heroic level games most character will run up against NCM, making it impossible or prohibitivly expensive to go above a certain amount of INT.

 

Other then that... I'd have to think on it...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

INT Based Background Skills are not Intellect Skills. therefore cannot benefit from Intellect Skill Levels.

 

Beyond that, I see no balance issues personally.

[Kelcyron]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

There are 2 reasons to buy 5-point skill levels with int (or pre) skills instead of just buying up the stat:

 

1) NCM (either due to heroic setting or taking the disad)

2) "Concept". If your character concept is someone who's not too bright (or charismatic) then buying up the stat isn't the right thing to do.

 

Other than that, there's no reason not to buy up the stat instead of buying levels.

 

Kelcyron

[Checkmate]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Soleil Noir,

Yes there have been MANY official answers that left me with that blank stare wondering "What?!?". It's best to just let it go, and do what you want. No amount of logic, proof or witchcraft will EVER get an answer changed.

[Soleil Noir]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

THANK you, Checkmate.....I suppose maybe I was just looking for validation of some sort -- that I'm not the only one who thinks that a lot of the "official" rulings are counter-intuitive and just don't pass the "smell test"; and that the lack of rationale offered for those rulings make them seem unnecessarily arbitrary or simply Bad Calls. I suppose if Mr. Long DID start offering the "why" to his rulings, explaining himself online could quickly turn into a full-time job....but when I post a question to the forums, I'm doing it with the hope of getting some insight I hadn't thought of before, or hearing from someone wiser or with a better understanding of the rules than myself; and often as not, I'm just not seeing it....

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

As unsatisfying as "Because I said so" is for an answer, personally I think Steve is wise to not get drawn into defending his game design philosophy. I know you're asking for explanation, not defense, but the former has a tendancy to quickly morph into the latter, especially online. It's fine for the rest of us to debate it to our hearts' content, but I understand Steve wanting to stay out of that particular dogfight.

 

As far as the actual ruling, I actually think it makes sense. Background Skills are not the same as Intellect Skills, even tho they're (normally) based on INT. OTOH, if a GM decided that he wanted to allow it in his campaign, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

 

I suppose I can see where the munchkins (I'm not accusing you of being one) might think it's more cost effective to just buy up their INT. But you could say the same thing about 8-point "All Combat" CSLs -- it's usually cheaper and more effective to just buy up your DEX. But that doesn't always fit the character concept.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

To get the +5 INT to work, you'd need to buy all your background skills at the 3 point level, or the 2 point level with and apprpriate Skill Enhancer (Scientist, Traveller, etc).

 

If you let the 5 point levels add to those skills, you are saving points that would otherwise need to be spent on those skill enhancers.

 

In a campaign with NCM in place, those 5 point skill levels are more of a bargain.

__________________

 

I don't always agree with Steve's rulings either (desolidification and falling, Hand Attacks, Damage Shield), but if I were him I would refuse to debate. He wouldn't have time to do anything else.

[Rapier]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

As far as the actual ruling, I actually think it makes sense. Background Skills are not the same as Intellect Skills, even tho they're (normally) based on INT. OTOH, if a GM decided that he wanted to allow it in his campaign, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

 

I suppose I can see where the munchkins (I'm not accusing you of being one) might think it's more cost effective to just buy up their INT. But you could say the same thing about 8-point "All Combat" CSLs -- it's usually cheaper and more effective to just buy up your DEX. But that doesn't always fit the character concept.

 

For me, it's all about concept. A high INT gives you better PER as well as a natural tendency to remember and have access to more information. A low INT and a bunch of 5 Pointers make you pretty dim and not very observant, but knowledgable in you areas of expertise. Should these skill rolls just be a little higher? Yes. That would be my first suggestion.

 

Concept could even go further. For instance, you have a character who has an integral cranial computer. But it takes him a few seconds to access hard to get information. The bonus has limitations on it, that requires a 5 pt level.

 

I wouldn't let it in without evaluating the entire character, but I don't have a problem with it. If it's in concept, I'd let it in.

[proditor]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I had the initial knee jerk reaction of "That makes no sense. INT is INT." But then I thought about it a sec. I have a player or two with 5 pt. PRE skill levels, another with a 5 pt DEX level, and not one single person with a 5 pt INT level. They have 5 pt science levels, they have 5 pt engineering levels, but not a one has a 5 pt. INT level. I think at some level I had already realized that Steve is (IMHO) dead on about a 5 pt. INT level being WAY too unbalancing in relation to the other skill modifiers. At least in most games I've seen, the thinkers of the group have some 40+ pts invested in science or knowledge skills at the base (3 pt) level. It's nigh impossible to do the same thing with DEX or PRE skills because they don't have the huge potential number of the Knowledge based skills. There just aren't as many skills in PRE or DEX (I'd put forth that once you add in the VAST majority of KS related skills, there are more INT based skills than all others combined, and to a degree that it theoretically only limited by your imagination).

 

So I get it now, and I understand the ruling. It actually seems fair to me now.

 

YMMV of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I had the initial knee jerk reaction of "That makes no sense. INT is INT." But then I thought about it a sec. I have a player or two with 5 pt. PRE skill levels' date=' another with a 5 pt DEX level, and not one single person with a 5 pt INT level. They have 5 pt science levels, they have 5 pt engineering levels, but not a one has a 5 pt. INT level. I think at some level I had already realized that Steve is (IMHO) dead on about a 5 pt. INT level being WAY too unbalancing in relation to the other skill modifiers.[/quote']

 

But this leaves the question of whether 5 points for +5 INT is also unbalancing. Leaving aside the issue of NCM for the moment, does it make sense that 5 points of INT costs 5 points, and enhances all INT-based rolls, but a 5 point skill level should provide less of an enhancement, plus be usable for only one skill at a time (if I have a complimentary skill, this could matter a great deal)? It costs the same, but does less.

 

Similarly, if I can buy +5 PRE for 5 points, get a +1 to all PRE based skills, even complimenary ones used at the same time, get +1d6 PRE attacks and get 5 points PRE defenses, does it make sense that +1 to all PRE skills, with none of these added benefits, costs the same 5 points?

 

The prima facie answer, to me, becomes "The levels do less than stats. Make them 3 point levels." However, this makes such skill levels far too effective in a game that does have NCM. The discrepancy won't go away, as what is balanced under one approach will be unbalanced under the other.

 

Thinking on it, maybe that's OK. It seems to fit the source material. In Pulp, Sci Fi or Fantasy, characters may be unusually intelligent, but not superhumanly so. They have a decent INT, likely within NCM parameters or maybe a bit higher (say a 23 max), and derive further skill from levels.

 

In the comics, however, we have guys like Reed Richards and Tony Stark who seem to master a new field of science overnight, and are brilliant in all fields. Superhuman INT - and they don't have NCM to contend with.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

To get the +5 INT to work' date=' you'd need to buy all your background skills at the 3 point level, or the 2 point level with and apprpriate Skill Enhancer (Scientist, Traveller, etc).[/quote']

I assume the OP meant that the Skill Level would only apply to background skills bought as Based On INT. Otherwise you're right, it makes less than no sense.

 

But this leaves the question of whether 5 points for +5 INT is also unbalancing.

I've always thought INT was underpriced, personally. But from a purely gamist standpoint, it's not as if most Hero characters I see have maxed out INT scores. Let's face it, for most action genres, most (certainly not all) players are more worried about getting their physical stats as high as they can. So if players who actually bother to put points into INT get a little added bonus from it, I figure that's not entirely a bad thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I've always thought INT was underpriced' date=' personally. But from a purely gamist standpoint, it's not as if most Hero characters I see have maxed out INT scores. Let's face it, for most action genres, most (certainly not all) players are more worried about getting their physical stats as high as they can. So if players who actually bother to put points into INT get a little added bonus from it, I figure that's not entirely a bad thing.[/quote']

 

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5, why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?

[Robyn]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5' date=' why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?[/quote']

 

Because it didn't fit the character concept?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

If you won't spend 5 points to buy your INT up 5' date=' why would you spend 5 points to buy a skill level and add 1 to your INT skills?[/quote']

I think you misunderstood me. The OP was worried this would "promote stat inflation" by encouraging people to buy up their INT instead of buying Intellect Skill Levels. My point was simply that I haven't seen that as a problem to date; on the contrary, INT is perhaps the least-inflated stat in the game. So even if INT is a little underpriced, so what?

[Lucius]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Soleil Noir,

Yes there have been MANY official answers that left me with that blank stare wondering "What?!?". It's best to just let it go, and do what you want. No amount of logic, proof or witchcraft will EVER get an answer changed.

 

Or explained.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary regrets the lack of manipulatory appendages. Say, can you lend a hand?

[OzMike]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Sorry, about to flog a dead horse but....

 

This discussion about INT vs Skills levels sounds suspisciously like the discussions surrounding DEX vs CSL that occur from time to time.

 

Like DEX, the stat INT is cheaper to buy than all the things it represents. If you want to see the math, I think Gary started a thread on it not that long ago (last 3 months or so).

 

The short of it is that it will always be cheaper to buy stats than skill levels, and that using skill levels seems to fit more within certain genres, levels of play, concepts and character builds.

 

So really, yes, it does come down to how the GM wants to run it.

 

There's no right and wrong ways - only pie.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I think you misunderstood me. The OP was worried this would "promote stat inflation" by encouraging people to buy up their INT instead of buying Intellect Skill Levels. My point was simply that I haven't seen that as a problem to date; on the contrary' date=' INT is perhaps the least-inflated stat in the game. So even if INT is a little underpriced, so what?[/quote']

 

I think physical stats will always see more inflation then mental ones.

 

In my experience I've seen very few characters with an INT over 18. Every once in a while I'll see somone go up to a 23 or a 28. I think mid 30's is where most GM's I have worked with seem to cap it off, and that's the kind of INT reserved for Reed Richards style uber science geeks and Supreme Sorcerers.

 

But, I think in large part that comes down to the GM's style. How smart was Einstein or Da Vinci in his games? How much smarter then them is he gonna let you be?

 

I don't think I've ever known a GM that would allow someone play a character with a 60 INT, even at superheroic levels. By contrast, I know very few that would even blink at 60 or more points of STR and arguably STR is signifigantly more useful (in combat at least). A 30 DEX costs more points then a 60 INT and again, more GM's will allow the former then the latter IMX.

 

I've had GM's tell me flat out "I don't think you can roleplay somone that smart" and I've also hear GM's say "I don't think I could write stories could realistically challenge somone that smart." However, no one ever has problems imagining a rock that a guy with X amount of STR can't lift

 

So yeah, even when NCM isn't a factor I think you will end up seeing a lot of super smart characters with lots of points sunk into skill levels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Because it didn't fit the character concept?

 

The simple fact is that character concepts that are substantially overpriced won't see much play. Have you EVER seen a player decide he would play a con man who has a low PRE, or a Superscientist who has low INT, but years of training? Because the skill levels are less effective purchases than the straight statistics, concepts that involve skill levels instead are rarely seen.

 

Similarly, and getting back to someone's comment about CSL's and DEX, how often have you seen a character with a low DEX and lots of CSL's, rather than buying DEX up? I've seen it where the CLS's were 2 or, at most, 3 point levels, but not levels with all combat to replace DEX. For games in NCM, this would mean a character with no more than a 12 or so DEX who buys a bunch of CSL's rather than buying up his normal cost DEX.

[OddHat]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

The simple fact is that character concepts that are substantially overpriced won't see much play. Have you EVER seen a player decide he would play a con man who has a low PRE, or a Superscientist who has low INT, but years of training? Because the skill levels are less effective purchases than the straight statistics, concepts that involve skill levels instead are rarely seen.

 

Similarly, and getting back to someone's comment about CSL's and DEX, how often have you seen a character with a low DEX and lots of CSL's, rather than buying DEX up? I've seen it where the CLS's were 2 or, at most, 3 point levels, but not levels with all combat to replace DEX. For games in NCM, this would mean a character with no more than a 12 or so DEX who buys a bunch of CSL's rather than buying up his normal cost DEX.

 

I agree with your point, but to expand slightly:

 

I have seen the Low INT high Skill Level scientist in play, as well as the Low DEX high skill level Martial Artist, both done for character concept. However, in both cases, they made use of 3 point levels, Overall Levels or Limited Levels (+X DCV from a cape, +X to Science Skills from a pocket computer, Levels that cost END, etc). Once the price disincentive was taken away, the concepts became much more attractive.

 

5 and 8 point levels are not a good buy in campaigns with no NCM, unless you limit them. On the flip side, while cost has an impact, concerns for cost alone don't drive character creation; "We're making characters, not filling out tax returns".

[Vondy]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

(Sorry to be making the same post in two different sections; but this is a more general "HERO game mechanics" question but I accidentally posted it to the

"Champions" section...)

 

In the "Rules Questions" section, someone recently asked about whether 5-point Skill Levels vs. "All INT-based Skills" would apply to Background Skills like Area Knowledges and Science Skills; Mr. Long's response was an unequivocal "No", citing that it would be "unbalancing"....

 

...Except that the character could take those same 5 points, buy up his INT by an equivalent amount, and bump up all of his INT-based Skills, INCLUDING the Background Skills, and it's not considered "unbalancing"! I asked Mr. Long where the imbalance was, and wasn't this simply promoting stat inflation, and got the standard "I don't answer game design/philosophy" response.

 

Does anyone else find this completely counter-intuitive and makes no sense? Has anyone else gotten frustrated by an "official" response that just doesn't seem to pass the "smell test", and you're denied the "why" part to the response that might offer the context as to how it DOES make sense?

 

And yes, I know that I'm completely at liberty to disregard Mr. Long and play the game as I see fit, thanks very much. I'm just wondering: since Steve won't, does anyone else here see his point of view and can make the case as to how 5 point Levels boosting background skills is unbalancing, but 5 points spent on INT to do the same thing isn't?

 

Background skills can be purchased two ways:

 

1) As a General skill with a cost of 2/1 (enhancers make this 1/1)

2) As a CHAR based skill with a cost of 3/2 (enhancers make this 2/1)

 

If the background skill is purchased as a general skill then, counter-intuitive or not, skill levels purchased for INT based skills would not logically apply. They are, in fact, not INT based skills. If they are purchased as INT based skills, then skill levels for INT based skills would logically apply. And INT is the most applicable CHAR for Area, Knowledge, Science, and many Professional Skills (though not all in the last case).

 

With that said, however, the default setting for background skills is that they are GENERAL skills. Within that context, and considering the likelyhood that the question did not stipulate the skills were CHAR based, Steve's essential ruling - that the INT based skill levels would not apply to Background skills - makes perfect sense.

 

Whether or not it would be unbalancing is another issue, and a far more subjective one. Personally, insofar as they were purchased as CHAR based skills - with or without an enhacer - I would allow INT levels to apply and wouldn't worry over it. Nor, insofar as they purchase them as CHAR based skills and pay the 3/2 base cost (or pay for the Enhancer to drop the base cost for CHAR based skills to 2/1), do I consider it unbalancing.

 

In my games that has always been the rule. I've never run into a balance issue.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

Background skills can be purchased two ways:

 

1) As a General skill with a cost of 2/1 (enhancers make this 1/1)

2) As a CHAR based skill with a cost of 3/2 (enhancers make this 2/1)

In my games that has always been the rule. I've never run into a balance issue.

 

That's not a bad houserule - making background skills 3/2 when they hit the characteristic roll rather than 3/1 like in the rules, with the enhancer bringing it back down. Skill enhancers would be much more common there, but that isn't much of a problem.

[incrdbil]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I never se a scientist/gadgeteer with an INT less than 23. I never see one with the INT skill levels. As for character concept..all the player has to say is 'well, my character is pretty darn smart AND he...".

 

So, in effect, if you hold to Steves ruling, just expect never to see 5 point INT skil levels bought--just minimum INT scores of 18 to 23.

 

Admittedly, I rarely run a character under 18 intelligence. I like to make perception rolls, and there is always some INT based skill or two worth taking. Paying extra points to be stupid, less perceptive, and only equally skilled in a few areas in comparison to the character with a simply innate higher INT seems to be a poor reward for 'playing to concept'.

[Vondy]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

I never se a scientist/gadgeteer with an INT less than 23. I never see one with the INT skill levels. As for character concept..all the player has to say is 'well, my character is pretty darn smart AND he...".

 

So, in effect, if you hold to Steves ruling, just expect never to see 5 point INT skil levels bought--just minimum INT scores of 18 to 23.

 

Admittedly, I rarely run a character under 18 intelligence. I like to make perception rolls, and there is always some INT based skill or two worth taking. Paying extra points to be stupid, less perceptive, and only equally skilled in a few areas in comparison to the character with a simply innate higher INT seems to be a poor reward for 'playing to concept'.

 

In NCM games - especially where the NCM is a hard cap - levels with CHAR based skills make more sense. And in games that are background skill heavy, even more so.

[Checkmate]

Re: Does this make ANY sense?

 

EDIT: Forgot to read page two.