Skills cost structure comprehension

[mwpowellhtx]

 

You seem to be over-thinking this. Just because a skill is characteristic-based does not mean it is a "general" skill, to use your term. The skill itself defines the scope of the skill. Being characteristic-based just affects the value you have to roll when you use the skill.

 

I may indeed be overthinking it. For what I'm doing with this, I want to decompose the meta rules. So far it's shaping up like cost structure, as a near corollary, skill rolls, is a separate concern from the skills themselves, which is fine by me. It works out much nicer that way.

 

 

 Familiarity with any skill gives you an 8- roll, regardless of whether the skill is normally characteristic-based or not. Using your example, Familiarity with Survival costs 1 pt and g     ives you an 8- roll.

 

     Proficiency, as a GM option, gives you a 10- roll for 2 pts., regardless of whether the skill is characteristic-based or not.

 

     Buying the skill gives the appropriate roll. Survival, being an intellect skill, gives you a roll of 9+INT/5 for whatever categories and sub-categories you have purchased.

 

Fair enough re: Familiarity vs. Proficiency, etc.

 

 

If you buy Survival: Arctic, that is "general" for Arctic/subarctic terrain. It is characteristic-based. If you buy Survival: Arctic/subarctic Plains, that is more specialized, but it is still characteristic-based.

 

I'm not sure I would decompose 'Survival' that way. You did read the same 6E1 section re: Cha-based versus Limited Category? I interpret Survival to be the 3/+2 INT-based skill, whereas Survival: Arctic might be considered the limited 2/+1 category; Survival: Woodlands might be considered 1/+1 for limited category purposes. Later, the player may specialize the general group +1 over all for 2 CP, or just Arctic for 1 CP. And so on.

 

 

I buy Science Skill: Biology for 2 pts. This gives me an 11- roll. Biology is a large topic, so my actual knowledge of the subject is rather broad; I know a little bit about a lot of things. If I pay 3 pts, I get this as an INT-based skill. that only affects my roll, but my overall scope of what Biology covers has not changed.

 

I haven't actually examined the Science Skill that closely, per se. It is mentioned as a background skill; GM discretion IMO whether that ought to be Cha-based. But anywho...

 

Fair enough. Thank you for the response.

[Lucius]

I'm not sure I would decompose 'Survival' that way. You did read the same 6E1 section re: Cha-based versus Limited Category? I interpret Survival to be the 3/+2 INT-based skill, whereas Survival: Arctic might be considered the limited 2/+1 category;

"might be" in the sense that, if you're running the game, you can change the rules to be whatever you want. But if you're interested in how the Hero rules actually work as written, you should understand that when you buy Survival: Arctic and spend 2 pts, that 2 pts gets you a roll based on a Characteristic, namely INT. So my hypothetical character with an INT of 50 who spends 2 pts for Survival: Arctic, gets a roll of 19 or less. Please go back and read p. 54 if you don't understand that.

 

If I want that roll with Survival: Arctic to be 20 or less, I need to spend another 2 pts, NOT just 1 pt.

 

Survival: Woodlands might be considered 1/+1 for limited category purposes.

Again, that 1 pt buys a CHA based roll. But then buying a plus 1 with it costs 2 pts, not 1 pt.

 

Worth noting, that plus 1 for 2 pts counts across the board: So if I buy Survival: Woodlands and Survival: Arctic I have spent 3 pts, and have an INT based roll for either of those environments. If I then spend another 4 pts for a +2, the +2 applies to Survival rolls in either environment.

 

Just to be clear: when it comes to Skills like this, with "Limited Categories," there is a decision to be made by the person running the game. Options are:

"Survival is a 3 pt Skill that applies in any environment."

"Survival is bought by categories. If you want to be able to Survive anywhere, it will cost a lot of points to buy all categories."

"You can buy Survival by categories, or just buy the non-specialized 3 pt Survival Skill, but for the latter you'll often have penalties because you're not as familiar with any one given environment. But you can use it anywhere, whereas the specialist with Survival: Woodland, can't use it at all in the desert."

 

So "type of character" does not effect Skill costs, but "type of campaign" does.

 

Later, the player may specialize the general group +1 over all for 2 CP, or just Arctic for 1 CP. And so on.

......not sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying you can get a +1 to the Survival Skill for 1 pt, no, you can't. Unless whoever is running the game wants to change the rules and say you can, but by "default" i.e. "Rules as Written" you can't.

 

 

What, exactly, are you trying to do anyway?

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Animal Handler: Palindromedaries

[Greywind]

From earlier replies, I'm not sure this is a more formalized version of a 5E addendum.

 

It can probably be sussed out of other pages, but specifically, I am referring to Hero System 6E1 p54, the sidebar 'Skill Cost Structures': "Characters buy some types of Characteristic-Based Skills ... by limited categories". There is a little additional explanation on p56, 'Familiarity And Proficiency', insofar as cost structures, associated skill rolls, and so on, are concerned.

 

I am assuming that all Characteristic-Based Skills are all 'general' by their nature; i.e. Survival might be considered a Characteristic-Based Skill (3/+2). Yet, one limited form might be Survival: Woodlands (2/+1). A subsequent limited form might be Survival: Mountains (1/+1).

 

And so on...

 

Limited categories, from my interpretation, look at Systems Operation. Very broad subject as defined in the base rules. Yet you can further limit the category by specifying what systems the character can operate.

[Scott Baker]

"You can buy Survival by categories, or just buy the non-specialized 3 pt Survival Skill, but for the latter you'll often have penalties because you're not as familiar with any one given environment. But you can use it anywhere, whereas the specialist with Survival: Woodland, can't use it at all in the desert."

 

 

@mwpowellhtx

Another game-use example using Survival instead of a Science Skill. Notice how they work the same.

[mwpowellhtx]

Well, the interpretation doesn't need to be perfect, but I would like for the pattern to be somewhat consistent.

 

 ......not sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying you can get a +1 to the Survival Skill for 1 pt, no, you can't. Unless whoever is running the game wants to change the rules and say you can, but by "default" i.e. "Rules as Written" you can't.

 

'Rules as written' are not especially concise, IMO, so this is what I am trying to suss out.

 

 

Worth noting, that plus 1 for 2 pts counts across the board: So if I buy Survival: Woodlands and Survival: Arctic I have spent 3 pts, and have an INT based roll for either of those environments. If I then spend another 4 pts for a +2, the +2 applies to Survival rolls in either environment.

 

What math are you doing to arrive at 4 CP for +2? For what? The limited category skill(s)? Or the group?

 

I could be wrong, but as I read the CHA-based skills, to Limited Categories, to General Categories:

 

• CHA-based: 3 CP to buy, 2 CP for +1; that I know of this is the max cost, whether 'limited' or 'general' in scope; i.e. Survival versus Survival: Woodlands.
• Limited categories are still CHA-based, but with limited scope: i.e. the Survival: Woodlands example. 2 CP to buy, 1 CP for +1 individually
• Does it make sense you can buy the group? Debatable; separating cost structure from skill, let the skill describe its scope. The cost starts looking more like the CHA-based 3/2. That's me, probably over thinking it.
• As a group, however, you can upgrade the group, 2 CP for +1 as a group

And so on, through Background, Familiarity, the only difference being the quality of roll, 11- or 8-, respectively.

 

We've beat this one adequately to death. I've got a pretty good handle on it now, methinks.

 

Thanks.

[Scott Baker]

What math are you doing to arrive at 4 CP for +2? For what? The limited category skill(s)? Or the group?

 

I could be wrong

6E1 90 describes the cost of +1 for Survival. Lucius is correct.

[Lucius]

We've beat this one adequately to death. I've got a pretty good handle on it now, methinks.

Not yet. You don't quite get it.

 

What math are you doing to arrive at 4 CP for +2? For what? The limited category skill(s)? Or the group?

Very simple math. Addition.

 

+1 costs 2 pts.

 

Another +1 costs another 2 pts.

 

2 pts + 2 pts costs 4 pts.

 

 

I could be wrong,

Partially

 

but as I read the CHA-based skills, to Limited Categories, to General Categories:

 

• • CHA-based: 3 CP to buy, 2 CP for +1; that I know of this is the max cost, whether 'limited' or 'general' in scope; i.e. Survival versus Survival: Woodlands.
  • Limited categories are still CHA-based, but with limited scope: i.e. the Survival: Woodlands example. 2 CP to buy, 1 CP for +1 individually

 

It does not say that.

 

Repeat, it does not say "Survival: Woodlands example. 2 CP to buy, 1 CP for +1 individually[/i]"

 

It says that it costs 2 pts. Not 1 pt.

 

Now, if you think it makes more sense for it to cost 1 pt, feel free to do it that way. I'll be the first to say there are things in the rules that do not make sense, and some of them are real doozies, and no one will tell you that you're wrong to change the rules around- heck, this change would not create any problems I can see.

 

But if you are under the impression that the rules are saying that you can get a +1 to Survival for 1 pt, you are projecting something into the text that isn't there.

 

 

That's me, probably over thinking it

You are definitely overthinking it.

 

Personally, I have sometimes thought it was a mistake to introduce this "limited category" concept to the game, and you are making me revisit that suspicion. You're also making me look into it in more depth and understand it better, so any conclusion I come to would be more informed, so that's good. I hope we'll have more conversations.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reminds me I'm here TALKING about Hero when I have a game tonight and should be rushing off to actually PLAY Hero

[mwpowellhtx]

I think I see what they're talking about. Applying GM discretion, there's a fine line between limited category and sub-category, IMO. I'm not sure I see enough of a distinction for game play purposes to justify that much detail.

 

I do appreciate the feedback.

[IndianaJoe3]

One idea that I've noodled with is keep the general skill (Survival, etc) as 3/2 but impose a -3 penalty if the character lacks an appropriate KS (KS: Deserts, etc) at at least an 8-. This reflects the fact that the character knows what should be done, but may not know the best way of doing it.

[mhd]

However, the skill system in HERO, though initially tacked on, functions really, really well when you integrate it properly. i have played heroic level fantasy and sci-fi games where skills were in far greater use than powers and the skill system functioned beautifully in all cases.

Well, it worked in GURPS, which pretty much uses the same base mechanic. Bell curves are great for that, don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that as the core. Then it's all just a matter of difficulty and skill levels. I generally prefer a wider spread for that, as it gives the characters more room to grow. So something from 11- to 21- would be great.

(Rather rare in HERO, more common in GURPS 3E, a victim of "normalization" in GURPS 4E)

 

Skill use is quite specific to campaign styles, so it's easy enough to just use a wider variety for e.g. heroic games, whereas in superheroic ones it's mostly a binary thing, where difficulty levels come in rarely.

 

You said the "F" word!

It was quite popular the first years I spent on the interwebs, so mea culpa…

 

Actually that methodology came from the interlock system side of the fence where interlock had characteristic ratings between +2 and +10 with +6 being average. then skill rolls being rated between +1 and +10. it worked pretty well when i played interlock.

That was actually one thing I didn't quite like about Cyberpunk 2020, the attributes were just too cheap, especially once augmentation came into play, made skills and thus specialization less important. Most later Fuzion variants toned this down a bit. Never mind that some of them had an insane amount of core characteristics, with more of them used as skill bases. HERO and GURPS are a bit minimalistic in that regard.