5th:Adventuring as an apprentice

[Wardsman]

Thinking of coming up with rules for apprentices as characters.

Besides taking the age limitation(10 year old), what disadvantages could you see such a character taking?

 

And how do you handle the aging of the character with young age limitation?

Growth spurt where he buys it off?

[eepjr24]

I generally play those as pre-session stuff. A lot of it is kinda boring unless you fast forward through the awkward bits. Generally I'd use 7's as base stats, build them up as you go at about 1 per 3 years with additional adds for anything they spend xp on. So if they are a Blacksmith, by the time they hit 19 they probably have 13-15 STR (3 from age, rest from xp), something close to that in CON, a minor DEX boost, maybe a bit of extra PRE. Mage apprentices gain in INT, EGO, PRE, some DEX, etc.

 

- E

[Cantriped]

Off the top of my head, an apprentice is an "Average Person" with the small template, who has Age (10-), social limitation (subject to orders), and social limitation (youth). They will have proficiencies in whatever skills their master is teaching them.

[Nolgroth]

I actually don't think I would take the Age Limitation. I would start out at low points and low stats across the board (5-8 depending on age and natural inclination) and the suite of Everyman skills. I imagine that they would have basics of whatever it is they are apprenticing in by the time the adventures start. Then it is just awarding experience as they learn and overcome adversity. The GM's challenge is coming up with the right balance of threat versus skill versus award.

[Wardsman]

Off the top of my head, an apprentice is an "Average Person" with the small template, who has Age (10-), social limitation (subject to orders), and social limitation (youth). They will have proficiencies in whatever skills their master is teaching them.

I don't know. Average is 8-10 in primary stats. An older one closer to making journeyman maybe .

But a young one just starting out at 10?

But the again I just looked at the age 10 limitation Strength is the only thing under 8.

[Cantriped]

I must admit I'm not really that familiar with 5th anymore (I spent a long time wiping it from my mind to make room for CC/FHC), but "Average Person" seemed more appropo than "Small Child".

Honestly, I've never been a fan of Characteristic Maxima (for many reasons). I don't use it in my campaigns, instead I just discourage players from buying up their stats beyond the Characteristic Maxima without a reasonable special effect for why that stat is so high.

[Wardsman]

I must admit I'm not really that familiar with 5th anymore (I spent a long time wiping it from my mind to make room for CC/FHC), but "Average Person" seemed more appropo than "Small Child".

Honestly, I've never been a fan of Characteristic Maxima (for many reasons). I don't use it in my campaigns, instead I just discourage players from buying up their stats beyond the Characteristic Maxima without a reasonable special effect for why that stat is so high.

May I ask why? I like to hear other options.

In a non-superheroic setting it makes a certain sense to me.

I'm leaning on tweaking charistic rolls too since supers are not present as suggested in Ultimate skill.

Looking at CHA/3. So an 8 would give a an 11 or less.

[Cantriped]

The reasons I dislike Characteristic Maxima include:

A )  Its purpose is to encourage players to build characters with stats that fall within "reasonable" or "realistic" ranges, but I feel like the actual result is that it only complicates the math in an already complicated, math-heavy part of character generation; especially in 5th edition and earlier where some characteristics are figured from other characteristics.

B )  It only punishes players who deviate from its range, without any commiserate reward for following its guidelines. Characteristic Maxima as a disadvantages doesn't actually give you points, it just prevents you from having to take another disadvantage, and in heroic campaigns Characteristic Maxima doesn't even do that.

C )  It cannot or should not be applied holistically. If you do, adjustment powers basically become half as effective, as do magical items, powered armor suits, or any other power that raises characteristics... and none of these powers receive the appropriate limitation value for the penalty they suffer. But if you don't, then you are actually just encouraging characters to have more complicated builds where some of their characteristics have to come from unusual sources to avoid being penalized by the Characteristic Maxima you forced on them.

For example:  Characteristic Maxima doesn't combine well with mass, size, or racial templates. If you don't house rule exceptions for elves to have a higher DEX Maxima than humans, then it doesn't matter whether the archer is human or elven, their DEX is still going to be 18. But if you do house rule that templates aren't affected by Characteristic Maxima, than you end up with every archer being an elf, and every warrior being an orc (or half giant), etc just to get around the characteristic maxima.

 

Options: I actually like the fact that there is a table listing ranges of characteristics that the game considers "realistic" or "reasonable" for normal humans. But instead of using all of the other complicated rules associated with Characteristic Maxima, and coming up with house rules for when it does or doesn't apply, I simply tell my players that unless their character has a "reasonable excuse" to, those values are the maximum values I want to see them purchase at character creation. "Reasonable Excuse" is a pretty broad category in my mind.

For example I don't mind if your Wood Elf Archer has a 30 Dex and 12m of leaping, that your Human Warrior has the blood of an angel or demon to explain her 30 STR and CON, or that your Dwarven Occultist sold his soul to devils to explain his 30 PRE and 30 COM (or striking appearance depending on edition). What matters is that you have a reason, which means you are thinking about your character instead of just your character's build. A character you have thought about is more fun to play than a build you've worked on, and my objective is for everyone to have fun.

[Cantriped]

I'm leaning on tweaking charistic rolls too since supers are not present as suggested in Ultimate skill.

Looking at CHA/3. So an 8 would give a an 11 or less.

 

I'm of two minds regarding this idea.

On the one hand I do like the granularity of skill rolls it will produce. Having originally come from d20 that was the hardest thing for me to get used to about HERO.

On the other hand I see a few issues with, and lots of extra work created by, changing the dividend for characteristic based bonuses considering that Success Rolls are on a bell curve:

A )  All of a character's rolls become easier to make unless you also increase penalties by between 40% and 66%; especially powers with Required Skill Rolls based upon APs.

For Example: Your Average Person would now have a 74% chance of success instead of a 50% (8 is the break-point in terms of rounding and would actually result in 12- rolls, not 11-). A Character with a 20 INT would have a 98% of succeeding Knowledge rolls instead of 90%.

B )  Unless you also make Familiarities (8- skills) and Proficiencies (10- skills) characteristic based (changing them to 5+CHA/3, and 7+CHA/3 respectively) then they become much less valuable if literally anyone can achieve a better roll by spending 1 or 2 more CPs.

C )  Skill Levels become next to worthless, unless for some reason you've already hit the maximum (or maxima) you can raise the stat. So the cost of skill levels would have to drop at least 40%, and in some cases they simply can't as they already only cost 1 CP.

Personally I don't recommend this change, its lots of extra work for every little benefit.

[Wardsman]

I'm of two minds regarding this idea.

On the one hand I do like the granularity of skill rolls it will produce. Having originally come from d20 that was the hardest thing for me to get used to about HERO.

On the other hand I see a few issues with, and lots of extra work created by, changing the dividend for characteristic based bonuses considering that Success Rolls are on a bell curve:

A )  All of a character's rolls become easier to make unless you also increase penalties by between 40% and 66%; especially powers with Required Skill Rolls based upon APs.

For Example: Your Average Person would now have a 74% chance of success instead of a 50% (8 is the break-point in terms of rounding and would actually result in 12- rolls, not 11-). A Character with a 20 INT would have a 98% of succeeding Knowledge rolls instead of 90%.

B )  Unless you also make Familiarities (8- skills) and Proficiencies (10- skills) characteristic based (changing them to 5+CHA/3, and 7+CHA/3 respectively) then they become much less valuable if literally anyone can achieve a better roll by spending 1 or 2 more CPs.

C )  Skill Levels become next to worthless, unless for some reason you've already hit the maximum (or maxima) you can raise the stat. So the cost of skill levels would have to drop at least 40%, and in some cases they simply can't as they already only cost 1 CP.

Personally I don't recommend this change, its lots of extra work for every little benefit.

 

Well a lot depends on difficulty levels (subtractions to rolls)in the system.

What does the math look like if it is CHA/4 especially on level familiarities and proficiencies??

[Cantriped]

Well a lot depends on difficulty levels (subtractions to rolls)in the system.

What does the math look like if it is CHA/4 especially on level familiarities and proficiencies??

Well... using CHA/4 instead of CHA/3:

A )  Roll penalties need to increase by 20% to 25% to remain "even". Your Average Person would have a 62% chance of success instead of 50% (as 8s would result in 11- rolls instead of 10- rolls). A character with 20 CHA would have a 90% chance of success vs. 83% (and in the previous post it was supposed to be 98% vs. 83%, I miscalculated).

B )  Familiarities and proficiencies would still lag, but obviously not as far. In my opinion though still far enough to make the extra cost more than worth just investing in the full skill if they aren't characteristic based. If they are characteristic based however 5+CHA/4 = 7- (16%) and 7+CHA/4 = 9- (37%) for an Average Person, which is essentially the same as it would be if you used characteristic based rolls for familiarities and proficiencies in the standard rules. If you make Familiarities and Proficiencies characteristic based and also change the dividend to CHA/4, the rolls for 10 CHA (the baseline) become 8- (25%), 10- (50%), and 12- (74%) for standard skills and characteristic rolls.

C )  Skill level values also still lag, but obviously not as far as with CHA/3, Reducing their costs by 20% would cover it. But again, some types of level just can't drop at all and those will be the ones to suffer most under either toolkitting.

[Wardsman]

Well... using CHA/4 instead of CHA/3:

A )  Roll penalties need to increase by 20% to 25% to remain "even". Your Average Person would have a 62% chance of success instead of 50% (as 8s would result in 11- rolls instead of 10- rolls). A character with 20 CHA would have a 90% chance of success vs. 83% (and in the previous post it was supposed to be 98% vs. 83%, I miscalculated).

B )  Familiarities and proficiencies would still lag, but obviously not as far. In my opinion though still far enough to make the extra cost more than worth just investing in the full skill if they aren't characteristic based. If they are characteristic based however 5+CHA/4 = 7- (16%) and 7+CHA/4 = 9- (37%) for an Average Person, which is essentially the same as it would be if you used characteristic based rolls for familiarities and proficiencies in the standard rules. If you make Familiarities and Proficiencies characteristic based and also change the dividend to CHA/4, the rolls for 10 CHA (the baseline) become 8- (25%), 10- (50%), and 12- (74%) for standard skills and characteristic rolls.

C )  Skill level values also still lag, but obviously not as far as with CHA/3, Reducing their costs by 20% would cover it. But again, some types of level just can't drop at all and those will be the ones to suffer most under either toolkitting.

Ultimate skill has a few ideas on balancing out what I want to do plus ideas on manipulating the curve.

It also has a chart to help wrap my head around the probabilities.

[Cantriped]

Then I'm afraid you are better equipped to toolkit this than I am. All I can quote is the Success Roll Odds table from the back of CC/FHC and give my opinions based upon that and my memory of the costs of things back in 5th. Which as I said isn't very good since I exclusively use CC/FHC now, I sold almost all of my 5th edition books years ago. I hope I've been helpful though, and other HEROphiles might have experience with the kind of toolkitting you're currently working on, so hang in there. Best of luck!

[Wardsman]

Then I'm afraid you are better equipped to toolkit this than I am. All I can quote is the Success Roll Odds table from the back of CC/FHC and give my opinions based upon that and my memory of the costs of things back in 5th. Which as I said isn't very good since I exclusively use CC/FHC now, I sold almost all of my 5th edition books years ago. I hope I've been helpful though, and other HEROphiles might have experience with the kind of toolkitting you're currently working on, so hang in there. Best of luck!

No you have been helpful.helpful.

 

What do you think of this?

 

 

for 1 Character Point, characters can buy a 7- roll with a Skill (16% chance of success);

for 2 Character Points, they can buy a 9- roll with a Background Skill or as an Advanced Familiarity with other Skills (37.5% chance of success);

for 3 Character Points, they can buy a Skill Roll calculated as (8 + (CHAR/4)) (giving a character with a Primary Characteristic of 10 an 11- roll, or 62.5% chance of success, and one with a 20 a 13- roll, or 83.8% chance of success).

 

 

[Cantriped]

for 1 Character Point, characters can buy a 7- roll with a Skill (16% chance of success);

for 2 Character Points, they can buy a 9- roll with a Background Skill or as an Advanced Familiarity with other Skills (37.5% chance of success);

for 3 Character Points, they can buy a Skill Roll calculated as (8 + (CHAR/4)) (giving a character with a Primary Characteristic of 10 an 11- roll, or 62.5% chance of success, and one with a 20 a 13- roll, or 83.8% chance of success).

 

This looks about right, as far as the proposed toolkitting goes. It will have the side effect of making everyman skills less reliable. I'd still suggest making familiarities and proficiencies characteristic-based (but I have to admit it's partially because I like that optional rule so much), but have them be (4+(CHAR/4)) or less for Familiarities, and (6+(CHAR/4)) for Proficiencies. This gives your baseline character the same chances of success with their everyman skills, but slightly rewards players who invest in a characteristic, and encourages them to build their skills up from familiarity to standard over time instead of waiting until they can afford a standard skill to buy it.

 

The next section to bang out the costs on, and one that is going to be much more important to your players is the costs of Skill Levels. In an ideal ruleset their cost needs to drop by 20% to remain even with the base ruleset... However we run into the issue that some types of skill levels have no room to drop (SLs for Science and Knowledge for example), and others might become overly efficient if you drop them even by 1 CP. I'm really not sure what to propose as a solution...

If you leave the costs of SLs the same, it becomes more expensive to counter the penalties associated with Requires a Skill Roll. If you also raise standard skill roll penalties from the book by 25% you are effectively nerfing everyone's aggregate chance of success by about ~15% (this value is based on my gut, I don't have the math skills to actually calculate the actual probabilities).

If you don't change the penalties you are instead increasing the chances of success for true superhumans slightly across by board, while slightly nerfing the everyman. Which might be okay, you just have to go into the campaign knowing when to expect so that you can plan your encounters and environment accordingly.

In either case I expect that you are going to see more players invest in standard skills over familiarities and proficiencies (unless they are characteristic based as mentioned above), having higher base characteristics where possible (because it is "cheaper" than SLs effecting all the skills associated with the characteristic), and using broader skill level groups over narrower ones (I don't remember the specific SL costs in 5th anymore, so I can't predict exactly which SL groups will be preferred, but Overall levels look pretty tempting in this system and if I recall they are cheaper than in CC/FHC).

[Wardsman]

This looks about right, as far as the proposed toolkitting goes. It will have the side effect of making everyman skills less reliable. I'd still suggest making familiarities and proficiencies characteristic-based (but I have to admit it's partially because I like that optional rule so much), but have them be (4+(CHAR/4)) or less for Familiarities, and (6+(CHAR/4)) for Proficiencies. This gives your baseline character the same chances of success with their everyman skills, but slightly rewards players who invest in a characteristic, and encourages them to build their skills up from familiarity to standard over time instead of waiting until they can afford a standard skill to buy it.

 

The next section to bang out the costs on, and one that is going to be much more important to your players is the costs of Skill Levels. In an ideal ruleset their cost needs to drop by 20% to remain even with the base ruleset... However we run into the issue that some types of skill levels have no room to drop (SLs for Science and Knowledge for example), and others might become overly efficient if you drop them even by 1 CP. I'm really not sure what to propose as a solution...

If you leave the costs of SLs the same, it becomes more expensive to counter the penalties associated with Requires a Skill Roll. If you also raise standard skill roll penalties from the book by 25% you are effectively nerfing everyone's aggregate chance of success by about ~15% (this value is based on my gut, I don't have the math skills to actually calculate the actual probabilities).

If you don't change the penalties you are instead increasing the chances of success for true superhumans slightly across by board, while slightly nerfing the everyman. Which might be okay, you just have to go into the campaign knowing when to expect so that you can plan your encounters and environment accordingly.

In either case I expect that you are going to see more players invest in standard skills over familiarities and proficiencies (unless they are characteristic based as mentioned above), having higher base characteristics where possible (because it is "cheaper" than SLs effecting all the skills associated with the characteristic), and using broader skill level groups over narrower ones (I don't remember the specific SL costs in 5th anymore, so I can't predict exactly which SL groups will be preferred, but Overall levels look pretty tempting in this system and if I recall they are cheaper than in CC/FHC).

I think SL's are cheaper in 6th than 5th but I'm still reading.

 

But back to the original thought of this thread. I think having ideas on stating apprentices could useful as they could DNPC's or followers.

Back when I played Murderer Hobo's, we use to let players run their henchmen and even use them as PC's when the main PC's were stuck in downtime actions.

 

Also starting a newbie on the IC process of gaining skills might be a good thing. I've been looking skill learning in Ultimate skills for ideas. This is usually waved in the main gateway RPG. But in Chaosium games somebody is always learning new skills sometime in game.

 

I remember my quest in RQ to learn Blacksmithing , Ceremony, Enchant and other skills to build my character a sword of power.