Why do we have skills?

[OddHat]

Characters who are meant to be hackers often represent their hacking with powers, not Skills.

 

Characters meant to be based around skills often end up using Super Skills built with powers rather than Skills.

 

Characters meant to be Master Linguists often represent this with Powers or Talents.

 

Even when discussing real world uses of skills and equipment (tapping into a com link was the example that got me thinking about this again) many GMs and players prefer to use Powers rather than Skills.

 

At what point do you say "Skills can't accomplish this real world task in my game, let's use a power"?

 

Why do we have Skills at all in HERO System?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

 

At what point do you say "Skills can't accomplish this real world task in my game, let's use a power"?

 

Why do we have Skills at all in HERO System?

 

I don't think that skill can't accomplish things in the game, they just do it mundanely. I think of the comparison of an athlete that has skiing on a 13- and James Bond going backwards down a hill shooting Russian angents. Both are "skiing" but Bond has probably bought it as some sort of superskill. Alternately Holmes ability to see almost exactly what happened by a few clues - he has a limited retrocog clairsentience, while the rest of the detectives have simple deduction. It's a form of niche protection for skill use - a way to say "I'm the very best at this"

 

In my games no superskill has RSR - the idea is that a superskill is so good that you don't fail - and that is the difference between the skill and superskill/talent.

 

So skills are used all over the place, but in those areas where the character is supposed to be very very good, they use superskills or talents to become better than the normal world would allow. Very Cinematic. Say a funky telepathy or Clairsentience that has the movie trick of when you type a word into a search engine the first link or two is exactly what you get, even if it is some supersecret thing.

[OddHat]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I don't think that skill can't accomplish things in the game, they just do it mundanely. I think of the comparison of an athlete that has skiing on a 13- and James Bond going backwards down a hill shooting Russian angents. Both are "skiing" but Bond has probably bought it as some sort of superskill. Alternately Holmes ability to see almost exactly what happened by a few clues - he has a limited retrocog clairsentience, while the rest of the detectives have simple deduction. It's a form of niche protection for skill use - a way to say "I'm the very best at this"

 

In my games no superskill has RSR - the idea is that a superskill is so good that you don't fail - and that is the difference between the skill and superskill/talent.

 

So skills are used all over the place, but in those areas where the character is supposed to be very very good, they use superskills or talents to become better than the normal world would allow. Very Cinematic. Say a funky telepathy or Clairsentience that has the movie trick of when you type a word into a search engine the first link or two is exactly what you get, even if it is some supersecret thing.

 

Why do you prefer the Power build to giving James Bond a high enough level in PS:Skiing to allow him to ski backwards, or Holmes enough skill in Deduction to pull off his trick? After all, both can be acomplished using the Extraordinary Skill rule, and the exact penalties for both could be worked out.

 

This is not meant to be a leading question: I think there's a genuine feeling on the part of some GMs that skills and penalties aren't detailed enough, and that powers should take their place. I'm looking for confirmation of that, or other justifications for Power based "Skills" rather than Skills using the current system.

 

Is there a case to be made for just dropping Skills entirely?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Why do you prefer the Power build to giving James Bond a high enough level in PS:Skiing to allow him to ski backwards, or Holmes enough skill in Deduction to pull off his trick? After all, both can be acomplished using the Extraordinary Skill rule, and the exact penalties for both could be worked out.

 

Is there a case to be made for just dropping Skills entirely?

 

Answer to the first question - even with extraordinary skill you can roll an 18. If you have a superskill that does not have RSR, you do it. And with the kind of points you spend on getting a skill roll to Extraordinary skill levels it comes at a similar cost. Also - and this is a lot of it to me - Extraordinary skill rolls are vague whereas a superskill is precise. XSR is very much in the hands of the GM on what the modifiers are and exactly what/how much you can do; a superskill has that in detail on your character sheet.

 

As for dropping skills entirely - I would say absolultly not. For two reasons - even in the games where talents and superskills are common, I would make an educated guess that those are only for a skill or two that the character has, and something they are very good at. The rest of the character's abilities are normal skills. Secondly in a lower point game, or one which isn't quite so cimenatic, where talents and superskills are mostly absent, skills are very very important. Third (yeah I said to, I had another thought) - superskills and such are expensive, whereas skills are farily cheap.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I think there's a genuine feeling on the part of some GMs that skills and penalties aren't detailed enough' date=' [/quote']

 

Well I'm sure the Ultimate Skill will help that that attitude.

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Alright so how do you disarm a bomb or unlock something without the key? You're gonna buy superskill transforms to do all that? I don't think that's the path I'd want my players to take.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I figure people often prefer powers to skills because, prior to the Ultimate Skill, powers were signifigantly better defined.

 

There's also the fact that something like Invisibility to Sight and Hearing never suffers negs and always works, while any given GM may tell you that even a Stealth roll of 18- is not enough to walk across a crowded room without being noticed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Answer to the first question - even with extraordinary skill you can roll an 18. If you have a superskill that does not have RSR, you do it. And with the kind of points you spend on getting a skill roll to Extraordinary skill levels it comes at a similar cost. Also - and this is a lot of it to me - Extraordinary skill rolls are vague whereas a superskill is precise. XSR is very much in the hands of the GM on what the modifiers are and exactly what/how much you can do; a superskill has that in detail on your character sheet.

 

As for dropping skills entirely - I would say absolultly not. For two reasons - even in the games where talents and superskills are common, I would make an educated guess that those are only for a skill or two that the character has, and something they are very good at. The rest of the character's abilities are normal skills. Secondly in a lower point game, or one which isn't quite so cimenatic, where talents and superskills are mostly absent, skills are very very important. Third (yeah I said to, I had another thought) - superskills and such are expensive, whereas skills are farily cheap.

 

I was watching the film 'Alexander' the other day, whch has a tagline of 'Fortune Favours the Bold', and I found myself thinking 'Rubbish; history reports on the bold who didn't fumble on a critical skill roll'. James Bond doesn't always drive or ski or shoot perfectly, but he's never rolled an 18 when it really really mattered.

 

That's one of the major differences between gaming and the source material.

 

Now I get the idea that OddHat posed his question not as a serious attempt to remove the skill system, but as a method of stimulating debate. If not the answer is simple: it is quick and easy to buy 'mechanic' as a skill and a nightmare to build it as a power

 

One idea I saw years ago (Runequest, I think) wsa that once you reach a certain level of competence the stuff you can do improves. So, to take an inconsequential example, a swordfighter with 90% skill might be able to fastdraw his sword and do some fancy twiddling without dropping it anl looking like a twit.

 

What I'd like to see for skill descriptions its this:

 

Mechanic:

 

Skill level: 8+ - can use a toolkit for general maintenence of simple mechanical devices on a successful roll

 

Skill level 11+ - can do basic maintenance on simple mechanical objects witout a roll and can effect repairs on simple mechanical objects or maintain complex objects with a roll

 

Skill level 14+ - can do basic maintenance on simple mechanical objects, effect repairs on simple mechanical objects or maintain complex objects without a roll and can repair complex mechanical objects or invent simple mechanical objects with a roll....

 

And so on i.e. a given level of skill allows automatic success for simpler tasks and allows access to more complex tasks. At very high skill levels you can do practically miraculous things with skills, but then you will have spent on them significantly. I do not have it yet, but I doubt that is the approach TUS has taken.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

For me, it often comes down to the "feel" that a particular method gives me in accomplishing my goals. Sometimes a Power feels like the right thing to use, other times a Skill feels better.

 

Speaking more pragmatically, Skills are often cheaper than Powers which effectively do the same thing, which makes them a more practical option for lower-point games, including most of the heroic-level ones. Another nice thing about Skills is that they're predefined in what they do (and now with The Ultimate Skill are even more defined), whereas Powers have to be customized for the effect that you want each time you bring them into a game. Skills are simpler and faster to add to a character sheet, and sometimes you just want that.

 

Like many HEROphiles I also like having multiple options for doing the same thing to choose from.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I figure people often prefer powers to skills because, prior to the Ultimate Skill, powers were signifigantly better defined.

 

There's also the fact that something like Invisibility to Sight and Hearing never suffers negs and always works, while any given GM may tell you that even a Stealth roll of 18- is not enough to walk across a crowded room without being noticed.

 

There will always be those who prefer certainty to chance, but even that is an illusion: your invisibility superskill fails if the opponent has enhanced sense of smell or detect invisibility, whereas your Stealth 18- might get you past them as you would realise you have to disguise your scent or just walk over - not being invisible you won't show up on hte detect

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

And so on i.e. a given level of skill allows automatic success for simpler tasks and allows access to more complex tasks. At very high skill levels you can do practically miraculous things with skills' date=' but then you will have spent on them significantly. I do not have it yet, but I doubt that is the approach TUS has taken.[/quote']

 

Have you looked at the optional rule for "Extraordinary Skills" in FREd or 5ER? (It's listed by that name in the Index). While it doesn't grant automatic success (that pesky natural 18 is still a possibility), it does allow for near-miraculous results from Skill use if you've bought them high enough to offset massive penalties.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I was watching the film 'Alexander' the other day, whch has a tagline of 'Fortune Favours the Bold', and I found myself thinking 'Rubbish; history reports on the bold who didn't fumble on a critical skill roll'. James Bond doesn't always drive or ski or shoot perfectly, but he's never rolled an 18 when it really really mattered.

 

That's one of the major differences between gaming and the source material.

 

Good point. And a superskill is a good way to model never blowing the roll when it mattered.

 

 

What I'd like to see for skill descriptions its this:

 

Mechanic:

 

Skill level: 8+ - can use a toolkit for general maintenence of simple mechanical devices on a successful roll

 

Skill level 11+ - can do basic maintenance on simple mechanical objects witout a roll and can effect repairs on simple mechanical objects or maintain complex objects with a roll

 

Skill level 14+ - can do basic maintenance on simple mechanical objects, effect repairs on simple mechanical objects or maintain complex objects without a roll and can repair complex mechanical objects or invent simple mechanical objects with a roll....

 

And so on i.e. a given level of skill allows automatic success for simpler tasks and allows access to more complex tasks. At very high skill levels you can do practically miraculous things with skills, but then you will have spent on them significantly.

 

That is a cool idea.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

For me, it often comes down to the "feel" that a particular method gives me in accomplishing my goals. Sometimes a Power feels like the right thing to use, other times a Skill feels better.

 

 

Like many HEROphiles I also like having multiple options for doing the same thing to choose from.

 

Those two statements pretty much sum up my attitude on the matter.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Characters who are meant to be hackers often represent their hacking with powers, not Skills.

 

Characters meant to be based around skills often end up using Super Skills built with powers rather than Skills.

 

Characters meant to be Master Linguists often represent this with Powers or Talents.

 

Even when discussing real world uses of skills and equipment (tapping into a com link was the example that got me thinking about this again) many GMs and players prefer to use Powers rather than Skills.

That doesn't tend to happen in my games. Skills are important. Even when runing a superheroic game where characters pay points for equipment, the equipment doesn't perform the tasks for them; they still need to make the appropriate rolls (such equipment is almost always purchased with RSR).

 

At what point do you say "Skills can't accomplish this real world task in my game, let's use a power"?

 

Why do we have Skills at all in HERO System?

 

We have Skills because not every task or ability is a "power". The point at which I say Skills can't accomplish a real world task is when that real world task is impossible for a normal human with appropriate training or knowledge. If a character wants to pick a lock, great, grab some lockpicks (free equipment, costs no CP) and make a Lockpicking roll. Want to pick that lock with your tongue using no other tools? Buy a Power (and probably buy it with RSR: Lockpicking).

[Bloodstone]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

There will always be those who prefer certainty to chance' date=' but even that is an illusion: your invisibility superskill fails if the opponent has enhanced sense of smell or detect invisibility, whereas your Stealth 18- might get you past them as you would realise you have to disguise your scent or just walk over - not being invisible you won't show up on hte detect [/quote']

 

Ok, perhaps ALWAYS was too strong of a word, but you hadn't posted yet Sean so I figured I could afford to be brief

 

Stealth can fail on a bad roll against a room full of completely normal mooks. Plus, the harder the GM thinks it is to do, the more you will be penalized. That Stealth roll can be quickly assigned penalties that might bring a 96.5% probability of success down to less then 50%.

 

Invisibility will generally only fail when the GM specifically sets you up to fail in advance because it's dramatically appropriate, such a putting in someone/thing with a proper Enhanced Sense or some other means of foiling your powers.

 

In addition, Skills even ones with simply amazing rolls, are generally constrained to a higher level of "realism" then powers are. To use a recent example form a game, I have a character that is a brilliant geneticist, biologist and zooologist. I wanted to create an antitoxin for a posion we had encountered. I think I could have had as high as a 17- or 18- roll through a combination of raw skill levels, complimentary skills and access to a very nice lab.

 

In any event, it was goign to take at least 24 hours to make that antitoxin. We needed it now, so it wasn't really an option. Right then and there, I CRAVED a small VPP for my biology based science inventions. A little "Universal Antitoxin" bought as some type of Focus based Adjustment Power (Healing? Dispel?) or Useable by Other Life Support would have done wonders...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Great topic!

 

I think the question has to do with storytelling as much as anything else.

 

Skills by their very nature always have a chance of failure.

Super-Skills or any other power-based replacement for a skill usually does not.

 

It reminds me of the relationship between Images, Shapeshift and Invibility. Images can be used as a replacement for the other 2 but it's not as reliable. In some cases this is desirable since it gives a simple way for anyone to see through the effect without any special senses.

 

Conversly, the chance at failing the otherwise required roll for skill can slow down the gameplay/storytelling. Super-Skills/Talents with no required rolls are like the defined Shapeshift/Invisiblity.

[OddHat]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

We have Skills because not every task or ability is a "power". The point at which I say Skills can't accomplish a real world task is when that real world task is impossible for a normal human with appropriate training or knowledge. If a character wants to pick a lock, great, grab some lockpicks (free equipment, costs no CP) and make a Lockpicking roll. Want to pick that lock with your tongue using no other tools? Buy a Power (and probably buy it with RSR: Lockpicking).

 

So, let's look at the occasional real world person who can accomplish the seemingly impossible; Houdini was known for using improvised materials as lock picks, including (according to one author) his own hair. Should someone like Houdini pay for a Lock Picking skill of 20-, so that the -6 or so penalty for inapropriate equipment can be overcome, or should he pay for a Transform or similar superskill? What are the ups and downs of each?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

So' date=' let's look at the occasional real world person who can accomplish the seemingly impossible; Houdini was known for using improvised materials as lock picks, including (according to one author) his own hair. Should someone like Houdini pay for a Lock Picking skill of 20-, so that the -6 or so penalty for inapropriate equipment can be overcome, or should he pay for a Transform or similar superskill? What are the ups and downs of each?[/quote']

The key here, at least for me, is "seemingly" impossible. Houdini's trick was fooling other people into thinking he was doing something impossible. In reality he was just really really good. As to your questions about the pros and cons of using Skills vs Powers, there are several. Generally, the boil down to Skills are cheaper, more flexible in use, but are guaranteed a chance of failure. Powers are expensive, do just one thing, but and generally guaranteed to work every time (unless Limited otherwise).

 

In Houdini's case, could either of the following (among many many other options):

 

Skills Version:

Lockpicking 20- (17 points assuming DEX of 18)

Contortionist 16- (9 points assuming DEX of 18)

Total cost: 26 points

 

Power Version:

Lengendary Escape Artist: Desolidification (affected by any attack); 0 END (60 Active Points); Does Not Protect Against Damage; Extra Time: One Turn; Only To Bypass Accessable Locks & Restraints; IIF (lockpick of opportunity)

Total Cost: 16 points

 

At first glance, the Power version seems must more useful and helpful. It automatically succeeds and costs less. However, simple Powers or precautions can easily prevent it from working. A chain or bank bag with Affects Desol on it would 100% always stop him for example. The biggest advantage to the Skills (and the primary reason they cost more in my opinion) is that a Skill can be used to unlock a lock and leave it unlocked, allowed an unlimited number of people to bypass it along with or instead of or in addition to the character.

 

This just looks at this one case, and only compares two methods of accomplishing similar actions, but I hope I exained the general idea well enough.

[Questar]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

I have to admit, in most campaigns I have played in, very few skills actually come into use on a regular basis, outside of a few standards like Stealth, Lockpicking, Security Systems, Breakfall and maybe a couple of others.

 

Players tend to spend their points on CSL's which are going to be continually handy, and rarely will "waste" points on background skills or professional skills.

 

It takes extra effort by a GM to include opportunites for players to use some types of skills, and even when added to a scenario, often feels more like "window dressing", and not something actually useful. (In other words, players have read game books and know that if no PC has the right skill, there will be some NPC with the skill to take care of anything vital to the plot.)

 

I admit that I tend to assign sucess or failure to some kinds of skills to the player's roleplaying, and not worry about a muffed skill roll. But I have always thought that for the amount of use they get, knowledge and professional skills, even science skills, Mechanics and the like, cost way too much.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Have you looked at the optional rule for "Extraordinary Skills" in FREd or 5ER? (It's listed by that name in the Index). While it doesn't grant automatic success (that pesky natural 18 is still a possibility)' date=' it does allow for near-miraculous results from Skill use if you've bought them high enough to offset massive penalties.[/quote']

 

This isnt new to TUS; you've always been able to do this with exceptionally high skills. Ive even built characters with one or more skills based around the -10 Extraordinary Difficulty penalty to be able to "pull off the (nigh-) impossible" in the past.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Personally, Ive always been a big fan of the HERO System Skill set, and have used them extensively both as a GM and a Player.

 

I also have extensively used "Super Skills" long before they took on the official usage and commonality they have today.

 

I dont see it as an either or scenario. There are some Characters, some ideas that work better with one or the other, often on the same Character.

 

I also think, like everything else, it comes down to how individual GM's run their games. If a particular GM makes Skills an important aspect of their game, so that players feel like they got the benefit of the points they put into their Skills, and particularly if Skill use is a main avenue of challenge resolution, then players will be happy to buy Skills and they will be used. On the other hand if a GM makes Skills unimportant, or penalizes their use such that they hardly ever succeed then of course players are going to eshew Skills and tend towards modeling similar effects on powers.

 

And of course, genre and available points has a lot to do with it as well. In a Supers campaign building a skill as a Power is more feasible than in a 50+50 heroic game -- and in fact it may not even be allowable to build such a superskill in such a campaign if the GM doesnt allow open access to the Powers mechanics.

[Funksaw]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Why do you prefer the Power build to giving James Bond a high enough level in PS:Skiing to allow him to ski backwards' date=' or Holmes enough skill in Deduction to pull off his trick? After all, both can be acomplished using the Extraordinary Skill rule, and the exact penalties for both could be worked out.[/quote']

 

Mostly because of these three reasons:

 

Once you get into the "flatly impossible if this wasn't fiction" area, it's very difficult to determine exactly -how many- points you need in order to do a particular impossible thing. To ski backwards while shooting ninjas with a wristwatch, do you need to succeed by 20? 25? 30? (or difficulty -20, -30?) Once you get to "beyond very hard" it's hard to determine just -how- impossible it is. Buying it as a power eliminates the arbitrary; indeed, even buying it as a power with RSR gives a very specific roll to do the impossible.

 

Secondly, once you get into that "flatly impossible" area, it makes an intuitive sense to call your rules from the "powers" section, rather from the skills section, which represent things you could concievably see a person doing.

 

Thirdly, power builds put control into the hands of the player, rather than the GM. "I'm so stealthy that I can effectively dissapear," when codified into points, means that you can use the power anywhere, anytime. Otherwise, the GM will have to make a judgement call whether or not a successful skill roll will allow you to do what the answer is.

 

Or to put that last point another way: Buying stealth as a skill means that you can hide in a convenient dumpster. Buying stealth as a super-skill means there is ALWAYS a convenient dumpster.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Ok, perhaps ALWAYS was too strong of a word, but you hadn't posted yet Sean so I figured I could afford to be brief

 

Stealth can fail on a bad roll against a room full of completely normal mooks. Plus, the harder the GM thinks it is to do, the more you will be penalized. That Stealth roll can be quickly assigned penalties that might bring a 96.5% probability of success down to less then 50%.

 

Invisibility will generally only fail when the GM specifically sets you up to fail in advance because it's dramatically appropriate, such a putting in someone/thing with a proper Enhanced Sense or some other means of foiling your powers.

 

In addition, Skills even ones with simply amazing rolls, are generally constrained to a higher level of "realism" then powers are. To use a recent example form a game, I have a character that is a brilliant geneticist, biologist and zooologist. I wanted to create an antitoxin for a posion we had encountered. I think I could have had as high as a 17- or 18- roll through a combination of raw skill levels, complimentary skills and access to a very nice lab.

 

In any event, it was goign to take at least 24 hours to make that antitoxin. We needed it now, so it wasn't really an option. Right then and there, I CRAVED a small VPP for my biology based science inventions. A little "Universal Antitoxin" bought as some type of Focus based Adjustment Power (Healing? Dispel?) or Useable by Other Life Support would have done wonders...

 

 

What?

 

This does demonstrate some interesting points about play and playstyle.

 

Very often as a GM I will roll all player skills in secret: you don't necessarily know if your stealth roll failed (unless the GM description is that you blunder into a stack of cans wheish fall into a drumkit, which....). This way a skill can be as 'reliable' as the GM wants to make it - if they are willing to just roll the dice but ignore the result they don't want

 

The other point is harder to address - a power based superskill can be quicker, sure: but you could just get creative, I suppose - you might use your skill to come up with a counteragent that doesn't need synthesysing that won't STOP the poison but will slow it - giving you time to synthesise the full antidote - or, assuming that the GM actually wants you to survive, you could discover that the antidote is in fact a common item (who'da known - vinegar stops ebola?) or you could discover that someone else has already started synthesysing it.

[OddHat]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

Thanks, some interesting feedback, especially on the idea of Powers as Skills being used to move things away from GM Control and towards Player Control.

 

So, as related to that theme:

 

The Ultimate Skill suggests that skill penalties generally cap at -9 for most skills, with the Power Skill, Knowledge Skills, and Science Skills as exceptions with their own mechanics. Anything more falls under the -10 Extraordinary Skill rule (-10 is suggested; GMs are free to assign more severe penalties). We know that Extraordinary Breakfall allows you to jump to the ground from a plane without a chute, so Cinematically Possible and Bleeding Edge of the Real World Bell Curve tasks do fit here.

 

Would you, as a player or GM, feel more comfortable using skills instead of powers if the exact penalties for apparently impossible tasks were spelled out rather than left to individual GMs? Is the problem that GM A may decide that Skiing Backwards is an Extraordinary Task and ask for a roll of PS: Skiing -10, while GM B might decide that it's Skiing -30?

 

Is there a level in a cinematic game where a given task is impossible to accomplish using skills, and if so, why would that task be possible to accomplish using Powers defined, from a SFX POV, as skills?

 

As a tangent, there has been lots of talk about prices. Since Skills and Powers can accomplish the same tasks for different costs, should a point based system unify the mechanic? Should we arange things so that "Not Being Seen" costs exactly the same whether you build it as "Stealth 14-" or "Invisibility to Normal Sight and Normal Hearing, Requires a Dex Roll, Not when attacking or under direct observation"?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why do we have skills?

 

As a tangent' date=' there has been lots of talk about prices. Since Skills and Powers can accomplish the same tasks for different costs, should a point based system unify the mechanic? Should we arange things so that "Not Being Seen" costs exactly the same whether you build it as "Stealth 14-" or "Invisibility to Normal Sight and Normal Hearing, Requires a Dex Roll, Not when attacking or under direct observation"?[/quote']

 

Well, few standard roll-under Skills do just one thing. Most tend to be like limited purpose VPP's, convering a broad array of abilities, but the bigger the ability the more penalized the Skill Roll and possibly the longer it will take to "activate" it.

 

Most Super Skill power builds by comparison are typically pretty narrow, but generally are more reliable and faster to activate (usually immediate).

 

So very rarely are you getting a reall apple to apple comparison in the costs.