Consolidating Skill and Combat

[Chris Goodwin]

Based on the Cotu! and Not So Crunchy Hero threads, plus some thoughts I've been having lately, I came up with this notion.

 

Combat Value and skill bonus are based on one value (probably CHA/5 for reasonable compatibility and because that value is used in other places, such as for STR Damage)

 

Each stat has its Characteristic Modifier (MOD), which is equal to CHA/5. (Optionally there's a 1/2MOD column, which is equal to CHA/10.)

 

Stat Block would look thusly (stat block for a sample character; Primary Characteristics only):

 

[font="Courier New"][b]CHA	VAL	MOD	xPTS	COST[/b]
STR	10	2	1	0
DEX	18	4	3	24
CON	15	3	2	10
BODY	13	3	2	6
INT	23	5	1	13
EGO	20	4	2	20
PRE	25	5	1	15
[/font]

 

If Figured Characteristics are kept, they should all be based on VAL and MOD (or, if used, 1/2MOD). If that means reworking point costs, so be it. (STUN could be BODY + SMOD + CMOD, for example; SPD would be 1/2DMOD+1, where SMOD = STR MOD, CMOD = CON MOD, DMOD = DEX MOD)

 

Skill Rolls and Familiarity:

 

The basic resolution mechanic: Roll 3d6. 10+ is success.

 

If you ever have to "make a Characteristic Roll" you roll 3d6 plus your MOD for the appropriate Characteristic.

 

For Skill usage:

 

If you have no Skill at all: no MOD.

If you have Familiarity: +MOD

Buying the full Skill is 3 points for MOD+2, +2 points per +1.

 

These values add to either the 3d6 roll (for the attacker or the active participant in a Skill vs. Skill contest) or 10 (for the defender or other participant).

 

Skills are denoted in +'s. So, instead of Computer Programming 14-, you'd have Computer Programming +6. Always include the appropriate MOD when you're buying the Skill (I don't like the idea of skill bonuses that add to different Characteristics depending on the situation.)

 

This applies whether you're the attacker or defender; if you're the attacker, this adds to your 3d6 roll; if you're the defender, it adds to 10. ("Attacker" and "defender" also apply to noncombat Skill use; it's whether you're the "doer" or the "do-ee".)

 

Using, for instance, Stealth would be a straight Stealth roll vs. 10 + the target's Perception MOD.

 

If there's some question about who's doing what to whom, it defaults to the player rolling. There are occasional exceptions; for example, if the GM is secretly rolling an NPC's Stealth vs. a PC, he'd roll.

 

New Skill:

 

Combat: Gives you the basic combat ability plus ability to use one weapon, and means you're effectively Familiar rather than Unskilled in other weapons that fall under the same Combat Skill. Additional weapons are bought as Weapon Familiarities, as normal.

 

Combat Skill Types:

 

Defensive

Hand-to-hand (maybe, maybe not)

Melee

Missile

Small Arms

Energy Small Arms

???

 

Basically, Combat Skill plus the various Weapon Familiarities act exactly analogously to Combat Driver or Combat Pilot and the various Transport Familiarities. Each Combat Skill type is a separate 3-point Skill, +1 per 2 points.

 

Everyone is assumed to have Familiarity with Defensive Combat. Defensive Combat is the basic "get out of the way of the attack" Skill and doesn't provide any weapon usage. Yes, this can be bought up. It can be used in conjunction with Dodge, which just grants a straight +3 to your Defensive MOD.

 

Skill Levels would pretty much work the way they do now. Probably costs 1 1/2 points for +1 to one weapon type (such as Pistols), 2 points for +1 to Combat Skill of one type.

 

Luck and Unluck: These are straight bonuses. These apply instead of Skill or Characteristic MOD, in situations in which luck is a factor. Luck is a bonus, and Unluck is a penalty. You don't get to apply Skill Levels, Extra Time bonuses, etc. to Luck. If you have both Luck and Unluck, you roll 3d6 + Luck >= 10 + Unluck. It's possible to buy both Luck and Unluck as situational. If you're using a Skill, you don't get Luck. (Possible exception for Gambling, but possibly not, because if you're a skilled poker player, you're not relying on Luck.)

 

(Crossposted to 6e Skills and Combat Issues threads)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I do like the idea of a single consistent mechanic

 

The main potential problem is that it makes buying in anything buy a multiple of 5 pretty pointless (well, you'd get 13/18 breakpoints everyone would shoot for, with STR being the exception because you get a difference in the damage. Some characteristics are used as threshold values (CON, PRE, EGO and to an extent STR) so every point will always be useful, but most of the others are only used to calculate skill bonuses.

 

What if we alos introduced the idea that those spare points, if you buy a dex of 12 might help? This is not an original idea - I've seen it posted before, but I can not recall by whom.

 

Basically you don't round your CHA rolls: you have to buy your characteristic up to 15 before you get an automatic +1 BUT if it is not divisible exactly by 5, roll an additonal die. If that number comes up equal to or less than the 'spare points' you have on the characteristic, you get +1 for that roll.

 

SO, taking 12 DEX as an example you get +2 for the 10 points and roll an additional 1d6 with your 3d6. If that additional die comes up 1 or 2 (you have 2 points 'spare' with a value of 12) then you get an additional +1 for that roll (a total bonus of +3).

 

ALSO, having looked at the above post, and picking up on hints from elsewhere that figured characteristics are going we NEED to keep COM and probably create PER as a characteristic too.

 

Why? Look at the stat block. If it were not for Body, it would be DnD **shudder**

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I do like the idea of a single consistent mechanic

 

The main potential problem is that it makes buying in anything buy a multiple of 5 pretty pointless (well, you'd get 13/18 breakpoints everyone would shoot for, with STR being the exception because you get a difference in the damage. Some characteristics are used as threshold values (CON, PRE, EGO and to an extent STR) so every point will always be useful, but most of the others are only used to calculate skill bonuses.

 

Yeah, that's true, but I'm not so sure it's a terrible problem. As you say, some of the characteristics are threshold values (and add BODY to the list, and potentially DEX for initiative -- all of the people who buy 14 DEX are going to go before those guys who hit the breakpoint at 13).

 

Or, look at it this way. Two guys fighting, both SPD 3. One guy is DEX 13, the other 14. For 3 points, he goes first, every time. (Or 2, if he bought it as Lightning Reflexes.)

 

What if we alos introduced the idea that those spare points, if you buy a dex of 12 might help? This is not an original idea - I've seen it posted before, but I can not recall by whom.

 

Basically you don't round your CHA rolls: you have to buy your characteristic up to 15 before you get an automatic +1 BUT if it is not divisible exactly by 5, roll an additonal die. If that number comes up equal to or less than the 'spare points' you have on the characteristic, you get +1 for that roll.

 

SO, taking 12 DEX as an example you get +2 for the 10 points and roll an additional 1d6 with your 3d6. If that additional die comes up 1 or 2 (you have 2 points 'spare' with a value of 12) then you get an additional +1 for that roll (a total bonus of +3).

 

Yeah, I've seen that one too. I'm not sure I want to be adding an extra die and having to track it against a separate value.

 

ALSO, having looked at the above post, and picking up on hints from elsewhere that figured characteristics are going we NEED to keep COM and probably create PER as a characteristic too.

 

Why? Look at the stat block. If it were not for Body, it would be DnD **shudder**

 

If you move Body to the side and call it hit points.....

 

D&D used to have an optional Comeliness characteristic, almost certainly after HERO came out.

 

Oh, and I only left Figured out because I didn't want to come up with a whole stat block. The Characteristics themselves are almost certainly staying.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

You are right. In fact the only characteristics that DOESN'T have an alternative/resistance use, and would be a pointless buy in less than 5 point units is INT.

 

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills, we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills' date=' we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....[/quote']

 

Careful Sean, you're walking a path I have trodden and it leads to thinking that the game would be lots easier to organise if there were no primary characteristics.

 

Doc

[prestidigitator]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I've done something similar before. My approach was to change the Characteristic "Roll" to the bonus of CHAR/5 without changing the basic cost or formulae. I also rated each Skill by the amount ADDED to the base roll: -5 (or so) for completely unskilled (if a roll is allowed at all), -3 for Familiarity, and +0 for the skill at base value. Then when it came to rolling skills the total bonus became the skill value plus either a Characteristic bonus (possibly the Characteristic appropriate to the action at hand if you use mix-and-match; see below), or +2 otherwise (equivalent to the usual purchase of a general skill at 11-).

 

For your usual Hero style dice rolling, you'd take 9+(total bonus) as the roll-under value. For my games I instead used a roll-high method that simply added the total bonus to the die roll and compared to a target difficulty for the task (default 12+). For attacks you'd add your CV to the die roll and compare to the target's 10+CV.

 

The appeal of this to me is that it looks familiar to both D&D and World of Darkness players (the bonus for a Characteristic or Skill is somewhat comparable to the "dots" you'd have in a WoD game) without changing the underlying mechanics at all. BUT it allows you to mix and match different Characteristics with different Skills as appropriate to the action if you like that aspect of games like the WoD family (that's part of the WoD mechanics I really LIKE, whereas the success-per-die thing I can do without).

[Markdoc]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Yeah' date=' I've seen that one too. I'm not sure I want to be adding an extra die and having to track it against a separate value.[/quote']

 

Agreed. A simpler approach is simply to say that in case of ties, higher stat wins. That only happens in skill vs skill contests, but for many skills, that's where the crunch is.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I've done something similar before. My approach was to change the Characteristic "Roll" to the bonus of CHAR/5 without changing the basic cost or formulae. I also rated each Skill by the amount ADDED to the base roll: -5 (or so) for completely unskilled (if a roll is allowed at all), -3 for Familiarity, and +0 for the skill at base value. Then when it came to rolling skills the total bonus became the skill value plus either a Characteristic bonus (possibly the Characteristic appropriate to the action at hand if you use mix-and-match; see below), or +2 otherwise (equivalent to the usual purchase of a general skill at 11-).

 

For your usual Hero style dice rolling, you'd take 9+(total bonus) as the roll-under value. For my games I instead used a roll-high method that simply added the total bonus to the die roll and compared to a target difficulty for the task (default 12+). For attacks you'd add your CV to the die roll and compare to the target's 10+CV.

 

The appeal of this to me is that it looks familiar to both D&D and World of Darkness players (the bonus for a Characteristic or Skill is somewhat comparable to the "dots" you'd have in a WoD game) without changing the underlying mechanics at all. BUT it allows you to mix and match different Characteristics with different Skills as appropriate to the action if you like that aspect of games like the WoD family (that's part of the WoD mechanics I really LIKE, whereas the success-per-die thing I can do without).

 

I like that about WoD too - a highly trained locksmith will know how to pick a lock and quite a bit about locks and it si much more straightforward to just buy the lockpick skill, and use it with DEX when you are actually picking a lock and with INT when you want to recall where you've seent hat particular brand of lock previously...

 

My personal preference for rolling is to base everything on CHA/5 and do the same thing using the combat mechanics. A normal has an Offensive Skill Value (OSV) of 2 (CHA/5). This is opposed by a DSV (Defensive Skill Value) - tasks that do not involve opponents as such have assigned values, so the DSV of a task that is of average difficulty to someone with skill to do it would be the same as the normal's OCV: 2. More difficult tasks increase the DSV: 4 for a difficult taks, 6 for a monumental task and 8, perhaps, for a superhuman task. A superhuman with a characteristic value of 40 would therefore be able to perform superhuman tasks routinely.

 

If you only have familiarity that is a -3 penalty and if you are completely unfamiliar that is a further -3 penalty. Favourable conditions can add to your OSV and DSV, and you can use exactly the same system for combat, skills and indeed any task resolution.

 

That way we get rid of the 9+CHAR/5 completely whilst perfectly preserving the odds of success.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

You are right. In fact the only characteristics that DOESN'T have an alternative/resistance use, and would be a pointless buy in less than 5 point units is INT.

 

Given that you can buy a 5 point skill level that allows you to add +1 to all INT based skills, we could get rid of INT and replace it with skill levels. Hmm....

 

The difference is, the 5 point Skill Level adds to INT-based Skills, one at a time, while 5 points of INT adds to all INT-based actions, all the time.

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

The difference is' date=' the 5 point Skill Level adds to INT-based Skills, one at a time, while 5 points of INT adds to all INT-based actions, all the time.[/quote']

 

 

Other than use of supporting skills, when does that matter? I don't recall every seeing someone actually called on to use multiple Intellect skills that had to be used at exactly the same time...

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I agree that a PC usually does not simultaneously perform more than one skill.

 

They usually perform one and then another when attempting Complementary Rolls which allows for reallocation of Skill Levels in between rolls if I am not mistaken.

 

 

6e could be a winner if it starts to look like other systems while still staying true to itself.

 

Am I correct in saying that the following are the core concepts of HERO that, if removed, would irrevocably change it into something else?

 

1. Toolkit

2. SPD Chart

3. D6-Based

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Other than use of supporting skills' date=' when does that matter? I don't recall every seeing someone actually called on to use multiple Intellect skills that had to be used at exactly the same time...[/quote']

 

Maybe. Just pointing it out. As The Main Man notes, how does this interact with Complementary Skills? But yeah, it is very much an edge case.

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Maybe. Just pointing it out. As The Main Man notes' date=' how does this interact with Complementary Skills? But yeah, it is very much an edge case.[/quote']

 

Complimentary skills are the exception I referred to (I tend to think of them as supporting skills for some reason); but often ones supporting Intellect skills are Knowledges anyway, which don't default to Intellect in the first place.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Just had a random thought: "Combat" being used as a Complementary Skill.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Just had a random thought: "Combat" being used as a Complementary Skill.

 

Yeah. To seduction.

 

Domach 'a chIy ghoS 'epagh!

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Another thought is that if CHAR generate a "MOD" and you roll high, this would make skill rolls based on alternate CHAR easier to calculate because you do not need to return to the drawing board; you just add the appropriate CHAR MOD to the Skill bonus that the GM deems appropriate.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I see where I've been having some trouble getting my head around stuff. I tried to consolidate and flip at the same time. Let me run some numbers on consolidating by itself before I flip.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

HERO will be more flexible than ever if CHAR MOD's become interchangeable bonuses for skills.

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

If there's anything I ever curse myself about, its that when I did the house rules for Superhero 2044 that Champions in part is based on, that I based the skill rules on attribute/5 instead of the smaller scale. If I had based it on attribute/3 I suspect you wouldn't even be having to think about this, Chris.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

If there's anything I ever curse myself about' date=' its that when I did the house rules for Superhero 2044 that Champions in part is based on, that I based the skill rules on attribute/5 instead of the smaller scale. If I had based it on attribute/3 I suspect you wouldn't even be having to think about this, Chris.[/quote']

 

True.

 

The Skills right now are 9 + CHA/5 for the full Skill or 8- for Familiarity.

 

Or 9 + CHA/5 vs. 9 + CHA/5 if opposed.

 

Combat is 11 + CHA/3 - CHA/3 with Familiarity or 11 + (CHA/3 - 3) - CHA/3 without.

 

We can consolidate them to:

 

11 + MOD - MOD

 

Whether MOD is CHA/5 or CHA/3 can be left an open question. I favor CHA/5 because that value is used in more places elsewhere in the system; if Figured Characteristics remain figured the CHA/5 number is even more useful (in fact the formulas that aren't based on it could be tweaked to be) but I think this is unlikely.

 

Here's a place where terminology is tripping us up: Familiarity. Familiarity with a Skill means you effectively have a penalty off of your base value, while Familiarity with a weapon means you don't have the penalty. We can turn the 8- Familiarity and the -3 unskilled weapon penalty into, say, a straight -2 penalty (which is what the -3 translates to when switching from CHA/3 to CHA/5).

 

More later.

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

The reason I wish I'd done it as Char/3 is that it would have increased the number of points of meaningful distinction for some characteristics that get a bit of short shrift here like Int. Admittedly, you'd lose the place where Char/5 cuts in, but most of those are on characteristics that have some interim value anyway (Dex for initiative, Strength for lift, damage and Figured Characteristic contribution, Ego for resistance value).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD, combat, skills, even characteristic rolls and opposed strength checks (Although I can see some logic in maintaining the Body Count method for opposed strength checks, if we did that we probably ought to use the same methody for all characteristic checks.)

 

We could use CHA/3 or CHA/5, but we should use the same throughout IMO. I think that CHA/5 is possibly the best bet, although I could be persuaded to CHA/3.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

The reason I wish I'd done it as Char/3 is that it would have increased the number of points of meaningful distinction for some characteristics that get a bit of short shrift here like Int. Admittedly' date=' you'd lose the place where Char/5 cuts in, but most of those are on characteristics that have some interim value anyway (Dex for initiative, Strength for lift, damage and Figured Characteristic contribution, Ego for resistance value).[/quote']

 

Oh, sure. If you'd done it as CHA/3 originally we might be looking at 1d6 per 3 STR, for instance, and we'd be talking about the "default scale" being 1d6 per 3 Active Points.

 

Just out of curiosity; were you (or the OHGs) playing The Fantasy Trip around that time as well?

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD, combat, skills, even characteristic rolls and opposed strength checks (Although I can see some logic in maintaining the Body Count method for opposed strength checks, if we did that we probably ought to use the same methody for all characteristic checks.)

 

We could use CHA/3 or CHA/5, but we should use the same throughout IMO. I think that CHA/5 is possibly the best bet, although I could be persuaded to CHA/3.

 

I think there's some reasons to keep two types of resolution 3d6+mod resolution for things that are somewhat linear (only somewhat because of the 3d6, but I think you understand what I mean) and dice-count-body for things where you want the result to get flatter and flatter as the value increases. I think they serve different kinds of purposes better.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I think there's some reasons to keep two types of resolution 3d6+mod resolution for things that are somewhat linear (only somewhat because of the 3d6' date=' but I think you understand what I mean) and dice-count-body for things where you want the result to get flatter and flatter as the value increases. I think they serve different kinds of purposes better.[/quote']

 

I can see that logic. I'm wondering though how we decide what needs to be flat? STR v STR I can sort of see: if +5 STR is 2x lift, then a little more STR should be a lot more advantage BUT the chances of 5 v 10 STR have very different with a count the Body thing than the chances for 45 v 50 STR, and, with the argument for Body counting therre should be no real difference there.

 

What about DEX v DEX: if we assume that characteristics are built to similar base principles then you should count Body on all characteristic rolls.

 

Logically then when you are pitting one characteristic against another you should roll Body. That would include, for example, combat, stealth against someone's perception and most social interaction rolls.

 

Rather than drawing what is going to be a somewhat arbitrary line between somr rolls and others I'd prefer a single consistent mechanic. Just my preference though. In fact, whilst I personally like the idea a great deal, if I were doing 6th edition the concept of Body counting would almost completely disappear from the system, probably only being used for KB rolls. Now that's quite a bit step...