Skills - not that important?

[Vondy]

There's a simple fix for this. Make the problematic CHAR linked skills into general skills. That way, all skills are 2 pts and 1 pt/+1. You can do the same with perception and start everyone at 11- as a campaign rule.

 

 

Unified skill cost structures could address the problem to a certain degree.

 

However, implementing one would also raise some questions requiring answers before play.

1. How do we price skills with multiple sub-categories?
2. Is there a material distinction between "general skills" and background skills?
3. If not, do we need an "official" list of general skills beyond convenience?
4. If not, do we fit them into the assorted background categories, or allow renaming  for flavor and FX?
5. Are all skill enhancers just iterations / special effect of the expert perk?
6. Or, could we drop any skill that fit the special effect that was defined?

I think it would be interesting to try a game with a unified and more flexible skill system.

 

On the other hand, we'd need a number cruncher to tell us if the pricing was broken.

 

I think it would be interesting to try.

[bigbywolfe]

8- is 25% and 18- is 100% unless you count 18a an auto fail and rolling a 17- is a 99.53% chance.

[Tasha]

That's no different than saying in <6e that we can model characters with high PD, ED, REC, END, and STUN, but low STR and CON, or characters with a high SPD and CV but low DEX. We can, but the system punishes you too much to make it make sense. The point is about correlation, and the existing rules cause correlations that don't make either good game or dramatic sense just as the figureds caused correlations. By combining them, we effectively have figureds for skills that shouldn't be particularly related. The fact that it's been in there since 1e doesn't make it make sense, and I always disallowed it in my games. Now that I use HD, I don't, but only because I haven't yet dug into the manual to change the sheet.

This is obviously a case of YMMV. I don't have a problem with skills having an associated Stat Roll. The ones on the list make close enough sense that it never bothered me. BTW if you don't use Characteristics for skills you don't have much of a reason to keep those specific Characteristics. Unlike figured Characteristics, using Characteristics for base skill rolls doesn't make me do odd things to make characters. They are an incentive to buy that Characteristic up higher if I have more than few skills that use that stat, but that doesn't bother me much. I could also choose to buy skill levels with those skills.

 

I guess you could make an argument that Skills are expensive to buy up to higher skill rolls (being 2pts for +1).

 

Before we start changing things we should really ask ourselves what do we gain by changing things, and do the benefits outweigh the negatives. If it's because "I find it's more realistic" then that's YOUR opinion. Also not a very valid argument for a system that is built to simulate Fictional situations (AKA Cinematic reality) and not "reality" If we go too wild we complicate the system and gain nothing but more lost players. Some "simplification" like removing all of the skills and allowing players to come up with their own skill names is actually a complication to the system disguised as simplifying. Having a good skill list is IMHO a HUGE help in character creation. It's why I have lists of things like Knowledges, Sciences etc because I can't always come up with what I need to create a character.

 

Now we should probably take a hard look at the Skill List and see if there are skills that might make sense to merge. Oratory and Persuasion are very close with the only difference being the size of the audience. That's from the top of my head, but I am sure that there are others that might be too narrow.

[PaycheckHero]

There's a simple fix for this. Make the problematic CHAR linked skills into general skills. That way, all skills are 2 pts and 1 pt/+1. You can do the same with perception and start everyone at 11- as a campaign rule.

I could, except I eliminated general skills as well. I couldn't admit to my friends that I had a dozen stats and yet they weren't sufficient for all my skills. :-)

[PaycheckHero]

This is obviously a case of YMMV. I don't have a problem with skills having an associated Stat Roll.

You must have misunderstood me. I base every skill on a stat, and never use general skills. If I did use general skills (why would I do that?) I would have to re-write the skill sheet so those designated general make sense. But usually it's trivial to determine which stat a formerly-general skill should be based on.

 

Before we start changing things we should really ask ourselves what do we gain by changing things,

I don't gnash my teeth at the insanity every time I look at a character sheet, which is good enough for me. My game, my rules. Your game, your rules.

[PaycheckHero]

Now we should probably take a hard look at the Skill List and see if there are skills that might make sense to merge. Oratory and Persuasion are very close with the only difference being the size of the audience. That's from the top of my head, but I am sure that there are others that might be too narrow.

I guess I think this is a campaign- (and gm-)specific choice. It would be excellent to have a short list of broader skills for many games, but wouldn't work for others. I think a lot of pulp games would work well with a short list of broad skills. OTOH, in a very hard SF game, we had *much* more specific technical skills than the hero list. (After all, who *doesn't* want to quantify the difference between a character's analytic chemistry skill and their skill at synthesis? )

[Lucius]

This is obviously a case of YMMV. I don't have a problem with skills having an associated Stat Roll.

One problem with it is the lack of consistency. Now that there are no Figured Characteristics, the influence of Characteristics on Skills is the only vestige of the paradigm of the character as an organic living entity in which different elements of the character sheet interact dynamically, as opposed to the paradigm of the character as an inorganic structure composed of static building blocks in which the size and shape of one block doesn't change when another block is added or removed.

 

The ones on the list make close enough sense that it never bothered me. BTW if you don't use Characteristics for skills you don't have much of a reason to keep those specific Characteristics.

I don't think losing Characteristics is necessarily a bad thing. A less intimidatingly long list of Characteristics might be a good thing.

 

Instead, we can have some method of making Skill Levels usable for multiple Skills simultaneously. One major difference between Levels and Characteristics now is that buying my DEX up lets me go up a wall quietly (adds to both Climbing and Stealth) but a Skill Level means I have to prioritize the goals of getting over and not being heard or seen while doing so.

 

Now we should probably take a hard look at the Skill List and see if there are skills that might make sense to merge. Oratory and Persuasion are very close with the only difference being the size of the audience. That's from the top of my head, but I am sure that there are others that might be too narrow.

I nominate Breakfall and Acrobatics. One can always take Limitations on Skills or Skill Levels for narrower applications.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Before we start changing things we should really ask ourselves what do we gain by changing things, and do the benefits outweigh the negatives.

The palindromedary and I agree

[Tasha]

I wouldn't mind seeing Breakfall becoming a part of Acrobatics again.

 

To gain the specific skills that's where Knowledges, Professions and Sciences could come to the rescue.

[Vondy]

I wouldn't mind seeing Breakfall becoming a part of Acrobatics again.

 

To gain the specific skills that's where Knowledges, Professions and Sciences could come to the rescue.

 

I've wondered for a while if Steve's inclusion of skills with sub-categories would lead to fewer top-level skills with more categories in them. Ergo: Acrobatics with Athletics, Balance, Break Fall, and Tumbling as sub-categories. The idea is interesting, but it makes me reticent because there isn't a away to apply different skill rolls to each sub-category. As a result, the character has to be equally good at each sub-category purchased - unless you by skill levels for the relevant sub-categories. While that would solve the problem, it would also make character sheets longer, might end up costing the same or more, and essentially adds a new step that reproduces what we had before.

[Tasha]

I've wondered for a while if Steve's inclusion of skills with sub-categories would lead to fewer top-level skills with more categories in them. Ergo: Acrobatics with Athletics, Balance, Break Fall, and Tumbling as sub-categories. The idea is interesting, but it makes me reticent because there isn't a away to apply different skill rolls to each sub-category. As a result, the character has to be equally good at each sub-category purchased - unless you by skill levels for the relevant sub-categories. While that would solve the problem, it would also make character sheets longer, might end up costing the same or more, and essentially adds a new step that reproduces what we had before.

I guess you could set up 1pt per +1 for the SubCategories, which would make sense if you were using Skill Sub-Categories. You are right it would make the CS really messy. Though you could set the thing up as an optional rule. I am thinking that most campaigns wouldn't need the extremely specific sub categories. Perhaps just say that the Skill costs 3 pts and covers all subcategories at the base roll. You could buy up subcategories at the rate of 1pp for +1 or the whole skill for 2pp for +1. Which would lead people to only have one specialization (which is good IMHO)

[Kraven Kor]

I try to make ample use of skills and let skill-based character shine.  Try to.

[IndianaJoe3]

I've played in heroic games where the characters had almost nothing but skills (and conventional gadgets). Naturally, they were important, and powers weren't missed.

[Vondy]

I've played in heroic games where the characters had almost nothing but skills (and conventional gadgets). Naturally, they were important, and powers weren't missed.

 

This is a lot like most of the games I run.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I've played in heroic games where the characters had almost nothing but skills (and conventional gadgets). Naturally, they were important, and powers weren't missed.

In my heroic fantasy games most of the characters had low-key powers (quite a few of them actually) but made heavy use of their skills. Just like any other fantasy game on the market. In fact, my wife's character only had a few special powers (a low powered magic pool representing her ability to speak with and manipulate minor elementals and a few combat Talents) and was a very skill heavy character and proved to be the most effective character in the game. Even the game's mage had a pretty good list of skills and did a pretty heavy amount of research using her Knowledge Skills during the course of the game. And of course the game's thief was constantly using stealth, Security Systems (find/disarm traps) pick locks, pick pockets etc.

 

Yeah, tons of skill use in my games.

[NuSoardGraphite]

It ultimately isn't a big deal, but it's clear that roll-high is more familiar. What I'd really like as a genuine improvement is to decouple skill rolls from attribute rolls. That would let us unify skills and skill levels, which is another simplification, and make it easier to do things like roll dex + football to play football but int + football to remember who won the 1987 superbowl.

I much prefer the roll low mechanic. The "lack of granularity" doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I also make heavy use of the roll less than half mechanic to represent a critical success (in skill rolls as well as attack rolls). I support skill rolls over 18- in the context that it increases your chances to critically succeed. (20 or less still fails on a roll of 18, but critically succeeds on a roll of 9 or less). I also use a house rule where the character critically fails if they roll double or more the chance to succeed. (on an 8 or less, critical failure is at 16+ On a 5 or less, critical failure is at 10+) so players really need to gauge if attempting a feat with such a low chance of success is worth the risk.

[MPT]

... . How often do you put additional points in skills beyond simply acquiring them, even for characters that aren't hyper-focused (e.g. "normal" characters improving Stealth, not just your party's ninja).

 

 

I was going to post a similar thread until I saw this one.

 

Looking at the characters in Nobles, Knights and Necromancers I was struck by how few of the NPCs took any of the skills beyond the base values. This seems to break with "reality". Think of any skill or knowledge that you have and think about how much better you are at that skill than when you first started it. Whilst in some cases you could argue that this is a change from 'Familiarity With' to a stat based skill roll - but one of the characters is a 200+ year old lich - do you think that it is likely that in over 200 years none of his skills have improved?

 

The above comments mention how large characteristic values can give you better rolls - but a person's INT is unlikely to improve that much.

 

It is not a problem with my group where player's do spend points on skill levels - but I too think that perhaps this is a small problem in an otherwise excellent system.

[Greywind]

Consider also that a person's stats change for the better from when they first started studying a skill, which can mark the improvement, while keeping the skill at the "base" level.

[Lucius]

- but one of the characters is a 200+ year old lich - do you think that it is likely that in over 200 years none of his skills have improved?

Probably more likely than you think it is.

 

It's not just a question of getting that good, but of staying that good, and staying that good requires practice. Sure the lich has had centuries of existence and may have centuries to come, and has the added advantage of not needing sleep, but there's still only 24 hours in his day same as anyone else's. Time spent creeping up on the crypt rats and grabbing them by the tail just to keep that Stealth Skill at 17 or less is time not spent reviewing arcane tomes to keep the magical Skills so high or practicing the meditative mental disciplines, mastered only by the unliving, that keep Mental Combat Values and EGO and PRE so high.

 

Consider the habits of top athletes, or special forces soldiers, or really anyone who's pushed their skills to the CHA Roll +2 or better level. They train constantly, because that's the only way to keep those skills that sharp. The reason you are unlikely to meet someone who is a renowned surgeon AND a world class violinist AND a black belt is not just that, sadly, a Human lifetime is not enough to master all these different disciplines, but that there is not enough time in a day devote sufficient practice to each to STAY a master.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Master of the palindromedary among other things

 

Lucius Alexander

[MPT]

It's not just a question of getting that good, but of staying that good ...

 

That is a good point and, given that I suspect that very few GMs would play a rule where skills that were not used were reduced even if such a rule existed, then I can see the logic of your argument to a degree.

 

However:

 

1) With the exception of melee or magic skills, very few of the characters are better at one skill than another (with the same characteristic). This would indicate that they spent the same amount of time on each skill to keep them up to date, which is unlikely to be the case.

 

2) Various NPCs in that book have varying number of skills; which is what you would expect (e.g. the lich has 23 skills, Ogarl has 13). This means, however, that a character who learns just one INT skill has the same level of skill as someone who has three INT skills - even though they had more time to spend improving their one skill.

 

I think that this could become a Game v Reality debate if I expand too much on this (and I don't want to hijack this thread) - but I hope you can see why this just feels wrong to me.

[Ndreare]

Probably more likely than you think it is.

 

It's not just a question of getting that good, but of staying that good, and staying that good requires practice. Sure the lich has had centuries of existence and may have centuries to come, and has the added advantage of not needing sleep, but there's still only 24 hours in his day same as anyone else's. Time spent creeping up on the crypt rats and grabbing them by the tail just to keep that Stealth Skill at 17 or less is time not spent reviewing arcane tomes to keep the magical Skills so high or practicing the meditative mental disciplines, mastered only by the unliving, that keep Mental Combat Values and EGO and PRE so high.

 

Consider the habits of top athletes, or special forces soldiers, or really anyone who's pushed their skills to the CHA Roll +2 or better level. They train constantly, because that's the only way to keep those skills that sharp. The reason you are unlikely to meet someone who is a renowned surgeon AND a world class violinist AND a black belt is not just that, sadly, a Human lifetime is not enough to master all these different disciplines, but that there is not enough time in a day devote sufficient practice to each to STAY a master.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Master of the palindromedary among other things

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I agree completely and I would add that a lot of people in order to break a plateau have to broaden their training regime (raise the base attribute) rather than just keep trying to push a narrowly focused skill.

I would say even mental skills plateau in the same way, that scholars will tend to diversify, even though they have a specialty, you will find your history professor with a specialty in the american civil war. Will know an awful lot about history in general and many, many other subjects.

[Ndreare]

Related, our heroic games tend to be very skill focused and our super heroic games normally have a minimum of 50 points in skills, perks & talents. Players often chose more. After all when you have 400 points it is very easy to get you 70 AP attack and defense.

[Vondy]

Broadening your knowledge base (e.g., buying add'l related background skills) provides complimentary skill rolls, which in turn, amp the original skills roll.

[Kraven Kor]

Probably more likely than you think it is.

 

It's not just a question of getting that good, but of staying that good, and staying that good requires practice. Sure the lich has had centuries of existence and may have centuries to come, and has the added advantage of not needing sleep, but there's still only 24 hours in his day same as anyone else's. Time spent creeping up on the crypt rats and grabbing them by the tail just to keep that Stealth Skill at 17 or less is time not spent reviewing arcane tomes to keep the magical Skills so high or practicing the meditative mental disciplines, mastered only by the unliving, that keep Mental Combat Values and EGO and PRE so high.

 

Consider the habits of top athletes, or special forces soldiers, or really anyone who's pushed their skills to the CHA Roll +2 or better level. They train constantly, because that's the only way to keep those skills that sharp. The reason you are unlikely to meet someone who is a renowned surgeon AND a world class violinist AND a black belt is not just that, sadly, a Human lifetime is not enough to master all these different disciplines, but that there is not enough time in a day devote sufficient practice to each to STAY a master.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Master of the palindromedary among other things

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I think some skills may degrade far slower than others, and just "fact recall" for KS skills probably only decays once our minds start to slip.  I recall reading somewhere that, in all reality, everything we have ever seen, heard, read, or done is indeed locked in our grey matter somewhere - 2.5 petabytes of data, if the random article I just googled is accurate (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-memory-capacity.)  The main problem is recalling it, accessing it, since the brain is constantly creating new connections.  Something like that.

[Nadrakas]

One issue is that 3d6 averages 10.5 and so you only have a relatively small range: +/- 7.5.  Given the nature of the bell curve, a few points on a skill (or a natural boost from a heightened stat) make more difference than the next few or the next few after that.  An above average skill value means that you have a significantly better chance of success than an average character.

 

The flip side is that a few points of penalties really bites into your chance of success.  If a GM ups the basic difficulty of tasks by making more use of penalties then that practically requires either specialists in a sufficiently broad pool of skills, or everyone to up their game, which is expensive, even if you want to cover the basics.

 

The cost nature of Hero is also a feature.  Some people buy lots of skills, which is only a worthy investment if the GM requires lots of skill rolls.  I imagine that most groups self-correct the problem by (mainly) the GM requiring skill rolls that he knows relate to available skills.  That does not mean that it is not an issue from a game design POV, but it does not often seem to be too much of a problem in practice.

 

Tasha and I have recently been discussing whether skills (specifically social skills) are an afterthought in Hero and still have not been developed as much as other parts of the system.

 

My feeling is that if we had a more interesting skill system, it might encourage more of the use of skills.  The challenge when designing such a system is going to be to pitch it so that you encourage more investment in skills but are not going to fail at everything if you have not added four levels to a skill to make you good enough at it.

 

I think a task difficulty system, should be part of the mainstream rules, as a minimum.  There  is already something in APG II, but not a lot of people necessarily have that, and it feels marginalised.  A difficulty system, perhaps with more examples for reach skill, might give both players and GMs an opportunity to more easily see how useful a skill is, encouraged it for appropriate tasks and still reward the occasional really high skill by allowing its use for tasks beyond the ken of the normal (or possibly the normal for Ken).

 

In addition to that we need a better system of opposed rolls, and skill contests.  

 

Finally we probably need more buying options.  Hero gamers love to think they have a bargain.  You know, skill specialisations, that sort of thing, perhaps other ways of buying skills in packages.

We use the Skill Value system out of APG II (It's touched on very briefly in HS Character Creation, page 55).  It works pretty good for us.

 

As for specializations, how's this:

 

Cost: 1 point for each +1 with a specifically defined area of Specialization within a particular skill

 

Some Examples:

Acrobatics: Moving Vehicles, Tightropes

Acting: Specific Individual

Analyze (Would have to be specific for each type of Analyze)

Animal Handler: Specific Tricks

Autofire Skill: (Not Applicable...)

etc...

etc...

etc..

 

Thoughts??

 

 

~ M