Consolidating Skill and Combat

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I'm strongly in favour of changing all task resolution to 11+MOD-MOD' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

The question then becomes; in instances where the GM would normally say, "Okay, make a DEX roll..." what do you use for the opposing MOD? It's a good bet that in most circumstances the GM will have something in mind, but not always. Do you just assume a MOD of 2 if not otherwise specified?

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

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?

 

If you look at the original publication date of TFT, it only barely predates Champions; by the time the original authors got ahold of my houserules, it wasn't out yet, so it had no influence on me. Now whether George and/or Steve had played TFT by the time they were approaching getting Champions together, I couldn't say, but I kind of doubt it.

 

There's really no need; other than converting a lot of flat values to dice, most of Hero's core traits are pretty clearly derivable from S44 and the houserules; most of the innovations could easily have been in the actual development rather than with any real second inspiration source. Certainly the 3d6 roll (which was present for melee and mental combat in S44) and the general scale and point build approach were already present in S44, and my houserules expanded on that, so any similarities to TFT are pretty much parallel development.

[Paragon]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

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.

 

 

I think that's the issue; you need to assess the cases where a small difference in attribute should actually have a big difference in likelyhood of success against another force, you just really don't want to be using 3d6+mod, unless you're going to use variable mods (and if you don't watch it when doing that, you can have a situation where you make the situation just impossible).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

The question then becomes; in instances where the GM would normally say' date=' "Okay, make a DEX roll..." what do you use for the opposing MOD? It's a good bet that in most circumstances the GM will have something in mind, but not always. Do you just assume a MOD of 2 if not otherwise specified?[/quote']

 

Exactly (assuming we runwith CHA/5; if we go with CHA/3 then we use a 'basic' MOD of 3)!

 

A MOD of 2 is precicely the same odds as rolling 9+CHAR/5. For a 10 CHAR normal that is 9+2= 11 or less. With MOD v MOD that is 11+2-2=11 or less.

 

I feel that having a MOD to simulate the difficulty of a task is more likely to encourage people to think about it a bit more: rather than 'Make a DEX roll with a penalty of 4 because it is difficult, you make a DEX roll against a MOD of 6. The chances of success are the same but the semantics are moer likely to encourage (IMO) using different task 'difficulty'.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

It's just like DC's* in D20.

 

 

 

 

*Difficulty Class

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

Exactly (assuming we runwith CHA/5; if we go with CHA/3 then we use a 'basic' MOD of 3)!

 

A MOD of 2 is precicely the same odds as rolling 9+CHAR/5. For a 10 CHAR normal that is 9+2= 11 or less. With MOD v MOD that is 11+2-2=11 or less.

 

Precisely. Also, with MOD v MOD, it gives the same odds as combat currently does (11+2-2 = 11 or less, 11+3-3 = 11 or less) (obviously this is different with characteristics that aren't 10).

 

(11 + your MOD - opponent's MOD) or less on 3d6 becomes (11 - opponent's MOD) on (3d6 - your mod).

 

Flipping this over becomes (10 + opponent's MOD) or more on (3d6 + your mod).

 

Familiarity with a Skill is 8- under the current system. This becomes 13+ when flipped (plus you don't get your MOD). The penalty for unfamiliarity with a weapon is -3, which becomes +3 to MOD. This gives us three possibilities:

 

--------------------------------------------------

3d6+MOD vs. 10+MOD (normal)

 

3d6+MOD vs 13+MOD (Familiarity w/Skill). Normally this would be 3d6 (no mod) vs. 13+ (flipped from 3d6 vs. 8-), but adding MOD on both sides keeps it consistent.

 

3d6+MOD vs. 13+MOD (Unfamiliar w/Weapon) (11-3+OCV-DCV becomes 8+OCV-DCV flips to 13+MOD vs. 3d6+MOD)

--------------------------------------------------

 

So, it looks like in both cases, there's a -3 penalty (for being Unfamiliar with the weapon or being Familiar with a Skill).

 

I feel that having a MOD to simulate the difficulty of a task is more likely to encourage people to think about it a bit more: rather than 'Make a DEX roll with a penalty of 4 because it is difficult, you make a DEX roll against a MOD of 6. The chances of success are the same but the semantics are moer likely to encourage (IMO) using different task 'difficulty'.

 

True. The only thing is, we need to make sure to set a default MOD of 2.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I got to thinking that maybe "Combat" should be split into Ranged Combat and Hand to Hand Combat to differentiate between Martial Artists and Gun Bunnies.

[Vondy]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

NOTE: This is a heroic level oriented approach. It can work for supers, but you would have to tweak the application to make it sing. I din't have supers in mind when I started using this - I'm a heroic kind of guy

 

I've removed OCV-DCV and replaced it with an opposed 3d6 MoS based roll. You can go one of two routes: the opposed roll is binary: hit/miss [this creates a few problems you have to hurdle to make it work], or it affects the amount of damage done.

 

This can be done a couple of ways: you can use standard effect and scale the damage based on MoS, or you can scale the DCs done based on MoS [heroic only]. You can also use a combination of methods. For instance, a boxer may do 4d6-1 with his punch. But as his MoS increases he might get up to +4DCs for a maximum blow of 8d6-1.

 

Its assumed a character is always evading at their base 9+ (DX/5) roll. They can use an action to use a weapon or relevant hand to hand skill to block. That's one thing that makes it unpopular with people who like the current hero martial arts system.

 

However, I've found that having the core martial art skill be used for striking and blocking, and then having a few specialist skills for things like "pressure points," "death blow," "choke hold," and the like works very well. And, since I scale the damage based on MoS I don't have to deal with purchasing Damage Classes.

 

I also don't have to deal with combat skill levels on the whole because characters pay to increase their skills to get better to hit and damage rolls. Instead, skill levels are generally for non-combat skills. The exception is penalty skill levels and skill levels constructed as talents, which tend to only occur in games with granular skill definitions (see below).

 

The only trick is defining how broad you want your weapon skills to be. This can be a double edged sword. On the one hand, its allows easy tweaking for genre and play style - you just provide a list that reflects what you want. On the other hand, it can lead to some conflict. For instance, does the character purchase small arms or pistols?

 

This can be handled in one of several ways: scale the cost schema of the skill based on breadth, trust players to build to concept and flow loose [which requires trust and a story focused style], or disallow skill groups [like small arms] and create a list of narrowly defined combat skills [like pistols, shoulder-arms, grenades], but allow skill levels to reduce the cost of combat skill intensive characters.

 

Another option might be to only allow combat skills at their base characteristic level and require people to purchase skill levels to increase the roll. In so doing, you scale the cost of increasing the roll to the breadth of the skill. For instance, pistols would require two point levels, small arms would require three point levels, ranged combat would require 5 point levels, and the like.

 

In general, I use a hybrid approach. I have a skill maxima in play for my heroic games (13-). The only way to exceed that maxima is to have a natural base roll that is higher than the maxima (14-, 15-) or to purchase skill levels that are scaled to the breadth of the skill. Thus, you either pay for the high characteristic, or have to buy levels, which for broader skills is more expensive than increasing individual skills [with the exception that increasing lots of individual skills will eventually be more expensive - you have to decide on a strategy that fits where you want the character to go. It also favors games where characters may be competent in many things, but have shtick for the things they are really good at.

 

Its not really that hard to consolidate the two at the heroic level, but it does cause the game to flow differently. Whether that is good or bad is subjective. Personally, I love it. The main advantage is that it avoids my CV peeve - that its puts all the emphasis on characteristic rather than skill. That's appropriate for some genres, but for heroic games not so much. As a result, even though you still get a base boost with a higher characteristic, you still end up focusing on skills to really become dominant - and can decide how broad you want that dominance to be (as opposed to having it be automatic).

 

This can work for superheroic games, too. You just have to think a little before you apply it. However, I think the current system works fine for supers - that is, after all, what it was designed for.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I figure that Weapon Familiarities would be sub-skills under the Combat skill in much the same way that skills like Systems Operation or Survival have.

 

I also got to thinking that the Combat skill could function in a way that is similar to some of the feats from D20 like Combat Expertise or Power Attack where the skill can take penalties for another end.

 

For example, I could take -2 to my Combat Skill to gain an effective +2 when I am attacked or vice versa.

[Vondy]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I figure that Weapon Familiarities would be sub-skills under the Combat skill in much the same way that skills like Systems Operation or Survival have.

 

I used this method as a test when I was fiddling with a skill based combat system.

 

It worked really well in terms of scaling cost, but had the drawback of giving you a monolithic to hit roll. You were basically equally good with every sub-skill you took, which is appropriate for some genres or character concepts and not others. I also tried this with three combat categories: ranged, melee, and unarmed. It worked very well, but the lack of ability to create varied skill rolls for varied abilities with different attacks stuck in my craw.

 

I also got to thinking that the Combat skill could function in a way that is similar to some of the feats from D20 like Combat Expertise or Power Attack where the skill can take penalties for another end.

 

For example, I could take -2 to my Combat Skill to gain an effective +2 when I am attacked or vice versa.

 

This is a good option. I like it.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

In addition, I mentioned it elsewhere but I think that the Martial Arts Maneuver creation rules can easily be folded into the Combat skill.

 

Like if I want a "Target Falls" element then I take a -1 to my Combat skill.

 

This is partially inspired by the maneuver creation rules from the WWE Know Your Role! RPG.

 

 

Taking all of this further, Skill Maneuvers can be more easily developed when they are looked at in the same light as Combat.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I used this method as a test when I was fiddling with a skill based combat system.

 

It worked really well in terms of scaling cost, but had the drawback of giving you a monolithic to hit roll. You were basically equally good with every sub-skill you took, which is appropriate for some genres or character concepts and not others. I also tried this with three combat categories: ranged, melee, and unarmed. It worked very well, but the lack of ability to create varied skill rolls for varied abilities with different attacks stuck in my craw.

 

If I read that correctly I think that individual Skill Levels for individual weapons may suffice.

 

Speaking of Skill Levels, would there be a need for the 10 CP "Overall" level anymore?

[Vondy]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

If I read that correctly I think that individual Skill Levels for individual weapons may suffice.

 

It does, except that raising the skill roll itself proves significantly more point-efficient, and short of me designing and micromanaging the growth of every character in the game it creates a huge potential for abuse.

 

Speaking of Skill Levels, would there be a need for the 10 CP "Overall" level anymore?

 

Not really.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

I see your point now.

 

Also, if the "Overall" Level gave way to "All Skills" Skill levels will start to cheapen a little bit on the larger scale.

[The Main Man]

Re: Consolidating Skill and Combat

 

This just occured to me: A player could sell back Combat for a point as an Everyman skill.