Level With Me

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

Like I said, I haven't actually done this... we resolved to allow Dodge as a maneuver (normal or martial maneuver) to affect both HtH and Ranged. For game simplicity sake.

 

I think that is where most of us ended up on skill level DCV as well, I suspect in part because the pricing was not exactly a bargain to begin with.

 

16 hours ago, Christopher said:

That is pretty much teh writeup I ended up with too. Except it those 2 damage slots were something called "Generic Damage Classes".

Unless you invent a new abstracted construct for it, you need at least 4 different attack power slots.

 

We need that "generic floating DC" concept.  It is essentially part of Deadly Blow type constructs.  With CSLs largely priced on the basis of a multipower, why not just set 1 floating 0 END DC at 10 points, equal to +2 CV?

 

16 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Making levels too restrictive will just send the players scrambling for higher base OCV/DCV.

 

10pt All Combat levels are fairly gross as you're paying double the cost of a permanent CV for the flexibility to move it around.

Do you want a +1 OCV or +1 DCV or would you rather have a permanent +1 to both?

 

The cost structure doesn't work unless your campaign has capped OCV/DCV.

 

The problem with 10 point CSLs is the multipower-based pricing.  +2 OCV, +2 DCV, +1 DC, +2 mOCV, +2 mDCV as Vatriable Slots is a 10 point pool + 5 2 point slots = 20 points, half of which (1 level) costs 10 points.  If you don''t need all five slots, you don't get value from the 10 point CSL.

 

15 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

Unless I missed something, nothing anyone has said in this thread pertains to anything except Combat Skill Levels. OCV and DCV being purchasable Characteristics may be a reason to rethink the costing or even the necessity for Combat Skill Levels, but I don't see where it impacts other Skill Levels at all.

 

 You have invoked my Skill Level Rant!!!

 

OK, I can buy +5 INT, get +1 to all INT based rolls at the same time and +1 to all PER rolls.  Cost of 5 points.  How is 4 points fair cost for +1 to one roll at a time, and no base INT roll or PER roll bonuses possible?

 

I think we should move to INT and PRE (like DEX) costing 2 points, and allow +1 to all CHAR and Skill (but not PER) rolls based on that Char for 5 points.  Less rolls, or only one at a time, then become limitations.  For 5 points, +1 to all PER rolls, +1d6 PRE attack, or +5 Lighting reflexes.  Again, limitations to reduce this cost.

 

+2 to all Ego based rolls for 5 points, and +10 PRE defense for 5 points, and keep EGO priced at 1 point.  No more PRE DEF from the PRE stat.

 

As noted above, skill levels are overpriced unless used to evade NCM double costing of characteristics.

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

the pricing was not exactly a bargain to begin with.

 

I totally get how Skill Level pricing is at odds with Characteristic pricing. My main issue though, is that they are too cheap at Heroic levels, and too powerful. I've noted PCs that are no longer in the DEX war business, have slipped into the Skill Level war business, because "not missing" is so damn important. AND because what look innocuous on the page... +2 here, +2 there... often stack very quickly and easily, and can get out of hand.

But, since OCV and DCV were separated into their own Charcteristics, we now have a clear "value" for  +1... it is 5 points. +1 OCV in all situations is 5 points. This does beg the question about 10pt skill levels as 10 points spent in OCV and DCV get you both at the same time, not just one at a time.

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

I totally get how Skill Level pricing is at odds with Characteristic pricing. My main issue though, is that they are too cheap at Heroic levels, and too powerful. I've noted PCs that are no longer in the DEX war business, have slipped into the Skill Level war business, because "not missing" is so damn important. AND because what look innocuous on the page... +2 here, +2 there... often stack very quickly and easily, and can get out of hand. 

While it is often ignored in favor of more prominent caps/guidelines (like OCV or DC), there is actually a Skill Cap in the rules too.

 

And once again the rule of thumb is: It does not mater how you got to that level. Only that you did.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

I totally get how Skill Level pricing is at odds with Characteristic pricing. My main issue though, is that they are too cheap at Heroic levels, and too powerful. I've noted PCs that are no longer in the DEX war business, have slipped into the Skill Level war business, because "not missing" is so damn important. AND because what look innocuous on the page... +2 here, +2 there... often stack very quickly and easily, and can get out of hand.

But, since OCV and DCV were separated into their own Charcteristics, we now have a clear "value" for  +1... it is 5 points. +1 OCV in all situations is 5 points. This does beg the question about 10pt skill levels as 10 points spent in OCV and DCV get you both at the same time, not just one at a time.

 

MP:  10 Point Pool

2 v +2 OCV

2 v +2 DCV

2 v +1 Floating DC

1 v +2 mOCV

1 v +2 mDCV

 

18 points

 

But it should be 16 points, as the 6e RAW says 10 point CSLs do not affect mental attacks.    Cheaper levels can be purchased for mental attacks.

 

CONCLUSION:  The math is wrong even if we agree that the premise of Multipower-based pricing is correct.  An "All but Mental Combat" level should cost 8 points, based on the 10 point pool and the first three slots.

 

btw, to the original issue, 6e says:

 

As an optional rule, the GM can distinguish between a character’s DCV against HTH attacks and his DCV against Ranged attacks. In this case, a character cannot use a CSL to provide a DCV bonus against Ranged attacks unless the CSL applies to All Combat (a 10-point Level). Moreover, a character with a CSL that applies  specifically to a Ranged attack or class of Ranged attacks  can never use the Level to improve his DCV. This optional rule reflects the fact that it’s difficult to dodge a bullet or arrow, regardless of your expertise at shooting bullets or arrows. The GM should always use it when characters buy CSLs with Limitations (an accurate gun doesn’t  make its user harder to hit, for instance).

[Jagged]

I am sitting here screaming "No" at this thread. 

 

I think skill levels of all types can only be balanced within an individual campaign against the other players and to a lesser extent npcs. If one player takes physicist as an int based skill while another takes science, one player is at an immediate disadvantage imo.

 

I also think combat skill levels should be used to enable how a player feels their character should work. Like your defensive swordsman above. Once they start getting loads of skills I would start pushing to merge them into globals or characteristics.

 

And lastly as an aside: many moons ago, when challenged to a duel at a larp, I did parry thrown daggers and arrows. Skill levels or missile deflection?

 

[Sean Waters]

On 2/19/2019 at 1:44 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

You have invoked my Skill Level Rant!!!

 

So, what I’d probably do is this.

 

1.     Make DEX cost 1 point per point, even if that means stripping out ‘reaction time’ and having a separate ‘Initiative’ characteristic.  But it won’t: DEX is overpriced.

2.     Make the cost of all skills, including Background Skills, 3 points and 1 point for +1.  It needs to be 3 so you can still have 1 point Familiarity and 2 point Proficiency.

3.     Not have a skill level that gives you +1 with a single skill because you don’t need it – see 2.

4.     Make Perception a Skill and decouple it from INT.  Everyone gets it as a full skill naturally but you can buy it down to Proficiency or Familiarity if that fits concept.

5.     Cost +1 with a single Characteristic Roll for 2 points. Because EGO Rolls.

6.     Cost +1 roll with a small group (4 skills) at 2 points.

7.     Cost +1 roll with a broad group (INT/PRE/DEX/Background/Characteristic Rolls) for 3 points.

8.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group at an additional 2 points (so 5 points).

9.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group after that 2 point hike at 1 point per additional group.

10.  This would make an overall skill level that can apply to any skill or Characteristic Roll once per phase cost 8 points.

11.  Allow you to add OCV, DCV, +1DC damage per 2 levels, MOCV and DOCV the same way you can add extra skill groups, so an overall level covering anything at all would cost 13 points, although, in practice, I doubt many people will want all of those things, so their custom overall level will almost certainly be cheaper.

 

The maths is still not perfect, but I’m balancing that against the ability to define pretty much any combination of things you are particularly good at.  I think that would work better than what we have at the moment.

[Sean Waters]

6 hours ago, Jagged said:

I am sitting here screaming "No" at this thread. 

 

I think skill levels of all types can only be balanced within an individual campaign against the other players and to a lesser extent npcs. If one player takes physicist as an int based skill while another takes science, one player is at an immediate disadvantage imo.

 

I also think combat skill levels should be used to enable how a player feels their character should work. Like your defensive swordsman above. Once they start getting loads of skills I would start pushing to merge them into globals or characteristics.

 

And lastly as an aside: many moons ago, when challenged to a duel at a larp, I did parry thrown daggers and arrows. Skill levels or missile deflection?

 

 

The Physicist  v Scientist problem has a theoretical solution: if they are each trying to solve a Physics problem then the Scientist is at a -2 penalty because they are a generalist.  If they are trying to solve a Biology problem the Scientist is also at a -2 penalty but the Physicist either can not solve it at all or or has a penalty of -5.

 

We probably need something like the Language Chart for Science.  Hmm...

[Sean Waters]

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

 

Damnit.

[Steve]

Regarding Skill Levels, one of the concepts I've been considering implementing in my own campaigns is that a skill level that is usable with several different skills just affects them all simultaneously. That is, if you have a level that works with all DEX-based skills, instead of saying it is being used for Acrobatics this phase and Stealth in the next phase, it simply improves both of them at the same time. It then becomes a cheaper option to buy a skill level rather than inflating your characteristics.

 

Is this a heretical notion?

[Lucius]

2 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

3.     Not have a skill level that gives you +1 with a single skill because you don’t need it – see 2.

 

 

I DO need it. See below.

 

On 2/18/2019 at 6:24 PM, Lucius said:

 

And then there are cases like this

3 4) +3 with Concealment (6 Active Points); Limited Power Only to hide knives (-1)

 

If I want to have a Skill, and then a bonus that applies only under conditions or is otherwise limited, I don't see an elegant way around using Skill Levels.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Steve said:

Regarding Skill Levels, one of the concepts I've been considering implementing in my own campaigns is that a skill level that is usable with several different skills just affects them all simultaneously. That is, if you have a level that works with all DEX-based skills, instead of saying it is being used for Acrobatics this phase and Stealth in the next phase, it simply improves both of them at the same time. It then becomes a cheaper option to buy a skill level rather than inflating your characteristics.

 

Is this a heretical notion?

 

I suggest that a Skill Level usable with more than one Skill at a time should cost +1.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that Riding is DEX based and Animal Handler is PRE based and a Skill Level with both seems reasonable......

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

2 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

 

Damnit.

 

All of the knowledge-style Background Skills have the option to be based on a Characteristic Roll, for 3 points rather than 2.  Still +1 per 1 point after.

[Lucius]

2 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

 

Damnit.

 

Probably for the same reason Knowledge SKill is.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary fades into the background

[Oruncrest]

We probably need something like the Language Chart for Science.  Hmm...

I shall direct you to the Ultimate Skill, pgs. 260-266, which has Fields divided into Disciplines, Subdiciplines, ans Specialities

 

Quote

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

 

Again, The Ultimate Skill provides an answer:

 

Quote

 

Science Skill is such a broad Skill that it generally shouldn’t be “unified”; that would spoil its usefulness and flavor. If you’re interested in suggestions for making it easier for characters to buy lots of SSs cheaply, see the optional rules in the Skill Enhancers section in Chapter One.

 

 

Basically, Steve felt that since "Science" was comprised of so many fields, disciplines, subdiciplines, and specialities, allowing a general "SCIENCE!" skill would be too tempting for too cheap.

 

Also, It makes the Etymologist (Specialities: Etymology & Chymerology)/Roboticist/Physicist (Speciality: Size Physics) easier to distinguish from the Physicist (Specialities: Dimensional Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Robotics)/Neurologist from the Mechanical Engineer/Physicist (Specialities: Astronautics and Hyperspace Physics) than if I told you that Hank Pym, Dr. Doom, and Mr. Fantastic all had the SCIENCE! Skill.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

So, what I’d probably do is this.

 

1.     Make DEX cost 1 point per point, even if that means stripping out ‘reaction time’ and having a separate ‘Initiative’ characteristic.  But it won’t: DEX is overpriced.

2.     Make the cost of all skills, including Background Skills, 3 points and 1 point for +1.  It needs to be 3 so you can still have 1 point Familiarity and 2 point Proficiency.

3.     Not have a skill level that gives you +1 with a single skill because you don’t need it – see 2.

4.     Make Perception a Skill and decouple it from INT.  Everyone gets it as a full skill naturally but you can buy it down to Proficiency or Familiarity if that fits concept.

5.     Cost +1 with a single Characteristic Roll for 2 points. Because EGO Rolls.

6.     Cost +1 roll with a small group (4 skills) at 2 points.

7.     Cost +1 roll with a broad group (INT/PRE/DEX/Background/Characteristic Rolls) for 3 points.

8.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group at an additional 2 points (so 5 points).

9.     Cost +1 roll with an additional group after that 2 point hike at 1 point per additional group.

10.  This would make an overall skill level that can apply to any skill or Characteristic Roll once per phase cost 8 points.

11.  Allow you to add OCV, DCV, +1DC damage per 2 levels, MOCV and DOCV the same way you can add extra skill groups, so an overall level covering anything at all would cost 13 points, although, in practice, I doubt many people will want all of those things, so their custom overall level will almost certainly be cheaper.

 

The maths is still not perfect, but I’m balancing that against the ability to define pretty much any combination of things you are particularly good at.  I think that would work better than what we have at the moment.

Mostly agreed, but I think that unless you're taking Presence Attacks away from PRE you need to leave init with DEX and PER with INT.  I also believe that Presence Attacks need to be gutted and reworked, but that's a topic for another thread. 

I'd also worry that the 3pt group you define is too cheap and will discourage buying characteristics.  The 1-at-once clause on skill levels doesn't feel like it comes up enough to be a -1/2 limitation.   

[Duke Bushido]

Here's a traditionally unpopular idea I used to toss out when there where "what would you like to see in 5e?" or 5er?  Or 6e?

 

And that was about it... 

 

How about _raising_ the prices of Characteristics (preferably primary and secondary, but you know: I just don't think that's going to happen anymore) until there is actually room for the granularity required to make all these things balance. 

 

I've been avoiding this one, and I'm stepping out now, simply because I don't want to get on a rant about "skill levels in a power framework." 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

So, what I’d probably do is this.

 

1.     Make DEX cost 1 point per point, even if that means stripping out ‘reaction time’ and having a separate ‘Initiative’ characteristic.  But it won’t: DEX is overpriced.

 

 

I think the price of INT, PRE and DEX should match.  1 point was my first view, but I moved away from that.

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

2.     Make the cost of all skills, including Background Skills, 3 points and 1 point for +1.  It needs to be 3 so you can still have 1 point Familiarity and 2 point Proficiency.

 

Are all skills now based on a CHAR roll, or none?  If none, DEX is Init only, INT is PER only (or eliminated entirely) and PRE is PRE attacks only.  I think your intent is that all skills at 3 points are a CHAR roll.

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

3.     Not have a skill level that gives you +1 with a single skill because you don’t need it – see 2.

 

By the time we get down to only one skill at a time, I think this is a reasonable price.  It may be "add 1 to the skill roll" or it could be "+1 CHAR roll, only for a single application"

 

3 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

4.     Make Perception a Skill and decouple it from INT.  Everyone gets it as a full skill naturally but you can buy it down to Proficiency or Familiarity if that fits concept.

 

Looks like INT now only adds to INT skills.  Why should DEX get skills and initiative (or PRE get skills and PRE attacks)?

 

I dislike 1 point for +1 to all PER rolls.  It seems very cheap, especially if I am Eagle Eye (bonuses to sight only) or Tracker (bonuses only to sense of smell).

 

To the rest, with my 2 points per +1DEX, INT, PRE, I am thinking skill levels look something like:

 

+1 to all INT, PRE or DEX rolls - 5 points

+1 to a group of skill rolls (all at once) - three skills (e.g. Acrobatics, Breakfall, Climbing) or a related group (e.g. all sciences) - 4 points

+1 to any one INT, PRE or DEX roll at a time - 3 points

+1 to a group of skill rolls (one at a time) - 2 points

+1 to a single roll based on the char - 1 point

 

+1 to any one set of CHAR rolls at a time - 8 points (same Multipower concept - 5 point pool + 1 per v Slot)

 

It took me a long time to get past "DEX, INT and PRE should cost 1 each", but when pricing out the components, they are just way too cheap.

[Christopher]

8 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

Also, right, why the flippety flip is Science a Background Skill and not an Intellect Skill?

 

Damnit.

Because in the average game, it is a Background Skill. It will not have a lot of impact on the game, so that is why it is "only" a background one.

 

As usual, if you play in a exceptional setting then science may have to be moved to a "foreground" skill. Possibly even split up into subskills.

[Jagged]

11 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

 

The Physicist  v Scientist problem has a theoretical solution: if they are each trying to solve a Physics problem then the Scientist is at a -2 penalty because they are a generalist.  If they are trying to solve a Biology problem the Scientist is also at a -2 penalty but the Physicist either can not solve it at all or or has a penalty of -5.

 

We probably need something like the Language Chart for Science.  Hmm...

I am going to risk disagreeing with my referee and suggest that the correct solution is for either both characters to have "science" as a skill or none. 

 

Why? Because only the referee knows how skills will be used in used in their campaign and it maybe that "science" is as deep as it's likely to go, or detailed skills are an important part of the campaign flavour. 

 

 

[Sean Waters]

12 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

All of the knowledge-style Background Skills have the option to be based on a Characteristic Roll, for 3 points rather than 2.  Still +1 per 1 point after.

 

12 hours ago, Lucius said:

Probably for the same reason Knowledge SKill is.

 

 

Ah, now I do appreciate that, but the problem there is that skill levels with INT based Skills do not add to Background Skills based on INT, which, well, makes very limited sense, if any.

[Sean Waters]

3 hours ago, Jagged said:

I am going to risk disagreeing with my referee and suggest that the correct solution is for either both characters to have "science" as a skill or none. 

 

Why? Because only the referee knows how skills will be used in used in their campaign and it maybe that "science" is as deep as it's likely to go, or detailed skills are an important part of the campaign flavour. 

 

 

 

Disagree away.  I am kind of with you though, but it does then require that you have a GM with a clear vision that has been adequately communicated to the players and the point of a rules system is to do some of that legwork for you.  Many disciplines incorporate other disciplines: it is almost impossible to do any science without some grasp of statistics, for example. 

 

My feeling is that 'Science!' is too broad, but Quantum Mechanics is too narrow.

 

Arguably, what should happen is that if you put 'SS: Quantum Mechanics' on the character sheet, the GM should note that and make sure it comes up in the game.  I am a lazy GM though, and feel I have enough to do.

 

It is always going to be a balance between flavour and playability.  Playability should generally win, IMO.  We already differentiate between Mechanics and Electronics as specific skills, Computer Programming and Systems Operations, Bugging and Cryptography, amongst others, presumably because we thing that is the sort of thing that might come up as a thing.

 

I'd be happy if we had something like:

 

Life Sciences - the study of plants, animals and microorganisms, medicine and genetics

 

Physical Sciences - the study or matter and energy and their properties and interactions

 

Earth Sciences - the study of the earth, the oceans and the atmosphere

 

Social Science - the study of  the psychology of and interactions between people or other social groups

 

...and call the job a goob 'un.

 

Anyway: I'll see you on Monday.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

My feeling is that 'Science!' is too broad, but Quantum Mechanics is too narrow.

 

Arguably, what should happen is that if you put 'SS: Quantum Mechanics' on the character sheet, the GM should note that and make sure it comes up in the game.  I am a lazy GM though, and feel I have enough to do.

 

I would suggest that the GM should note that, or that you just put "Science", and assess whether these are appropriate to the manner in which he will run his game.  Perhaps he goes back to one player and tells him to broaden "Quantum Mechanics", with the understanding that he is a specialist within that field in Quantum Mechanics (maybe it comes up  once or twice in the campaign and he gets a bonus, or even auto-success).  The other player might be told to narrow his Science, or perhaps expect a -3 penalty on most rolls, but he can make rolls in all science areas.

 

Or maybe the proactive GM provides that list you set out and says "In this game, this is how you buy Science Skills".

[Sean Waters]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I think the price of INT, PRE and DEX should match.  1 point was my first view, but I moved away from that.

 

To where?  Maybe the problem is that we have these extra bits tacked on to INT, PRE and DEX.

 

I just really dislike Perception being linked to intelligence because what it SHOULD be, in my opinion, is the ability to sense things, not the ability to interpret things.

 

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson both hear the same sound, but Sherlock recognises it as the sound of a man walking with a slight limp, so probably the stevedore they encountered earlier who they lost in the maze of backstreets when he slipped and twisted is ankle, and Watson just recognises it as footsteps.  Perception should determine whether they can actually perceive something, all their other skills and experience should determine what they make of it.  I would re-define Enhanced Senses while I'm at it by saying that 'Discriminatory' means that you can determine some detail, roughly analogous to human sight or hearing, and Analyse would just go.  I have no clear idea of what it is other than an add-on that functions like another detect, and we have Detect for that.

 

EDIT: On Perception, I would make it a General Skill, which you could then base on INT if you wanted.  This would mean that intelligent people were not necessarily perceptive, but might be, and animals with low INT didn't keep walking into trees.

 

Right.  PRE.  I'd be happy for PRE attacks to go entirely too.  They are a mechanic that has been around since the beginning (I think) in HERO, but nothing quite like them exists in other games, that I can think of, and , if there is a need for something like that, it can be accomplished through role playing and social skills.  I was playing in a DnD game back at University and the party were being pursued by a big group of orcs.  The party were firing back at them to discourage pursuit and three of them happened to roll 20 on their attack rolls.  The orcs thought better of continuing the chase, even though, logically, that was very unlikely to happen again and they still easily had the numbers.  No mechanic needed.  If there were no PRE attacks in HERO, no one new to the game would ever notice a gap in the rules.  Also, whilst come players like using PRE attacks, they pretty much universally hate having them used on them.

 

DEX helps determine the order of combat.  Personally I don't think that is very important, certainly not anywhere near worth the characteristic costing double.  It only really matters on the first round of combat - characters with equal Speed then just act in order anyway.  You could easily replace DEX exclusivity with choosing the highest of INT, PRE or DEX.  DEX because it is an indication of your physical reaction speed, INT because it is an indication of your mental reaction speed, and PRE because it is an indication of the force of personality, which could be interpreted as willingness to act.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Sean Waters
I thought of something else and this seemed the most logical place to put it.

[Sean Waters]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I would suggest that the GM should note that, or that you just put "Science", and assess whether these are appropriate to the manner in which he will run his game.  Perhaps he goes back to one player and tells him to broaden "Quantum Mechanics", with the understanding that he is a specialist within that field in Quantum Mechanics (maybe it comes up  once or twice in the campaign and he gets a bonus, or even auto-success).  The other player might be told to narrow his Science, or perhaps expect a -3 penalty on most rolls, but he can make rolls in all science areas.

 

Or maybe the proactive GM provides that list you set out and says "In this game, this is how you buy Science Skills".

 

Hmm.  Maybe.  I mean, just because someone has Bureaucratics on their character sheet, on the basis that the character is an Administration Assistant by day and a Caped Crusader by night doesn't mean that there should be a bit of plot in there somewhere that turns on filing a tax return.

 

I'd be happier with a small number of broad science types (like the ones suggested above), which caters for flavour but also allows for simplicity and ease of play.  Less work for the GM, more clarity for the player and if you spend points on something that never comes up in practice well:

 

1.  That happens with other skills too, and

2.  You should ask the GM for permission to spend those points on another skill.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

I just really dislike Perception being linked to intelligence because what it SHOULD be, in my opinion, is the ability to sense things, not the ability to interpret things.

 

Splitting the two is certainly an option.  So is leaving them bundled, but providing mechanics to break out the two effects so one or the other can be enhanced at an equitable cost.

 

6 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

Right.  PRE.  I'd be happy for PRE attacks to go entirely too.  They are a mechanic that has been around since the beginning (I think) in HERO, but nothing quite like them exists in other games, that I can think of, and , if there is a need for something like that, it can be accomplished through role playing and social skills.  I was playing in a DnD game back at University and the party were being pursued by a big group of orcs.  The party were firing back at them to discourage pursuit and three of them happened to roll 20 on their attack rolls.  The orcs thought better of continuing the chase, even though, logically, that was very unlikely to happen again and they still easily had the numbers.  No mechanic needed.  If there were no PRE attacks in HERO, no one new to the game would ever notice a gap in the rules.  Also, whilst come players like using PRE attacks, they pretty much universally hate having them used on them.

 

I would say the allure of PRE attacks is that they are a mechanic, not a GM judgment call.  This comes back to the age-old debate of what the point of buying any form of social skill/impressiveness stat is if the GM decides we will resolve all these issues through "role playing" such that the results are dictated by player social skills and GM biases rather than game mechanics.  Hero was among the first to add such mechanics.  Other games followed (d20 now having mechanics for diplomacy, intimidation, bluffing, etc.).

8 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

DEX helps determine the order of combat.  Personally I don't think that is very important, certainly not anywhere near worth the characteristic costing double.

 

You and I are on the same page on placing little value on going first, but I see this in both Hero and d20 players, so ours is not the only viewpoint.  In a WIld West game (high lethality and low defenses), going first seems a lot more important.  If we can buy DEX for 2 points each,, or DEX without initiative for 1 point (effectively, +1 to all DEX rolls for +5 points, and +5 initiative for +5 points), we can exercise our preferences, as can those who value going first.

 

At present, each stat does two things, so my bias is to allow separate purchases, priced appropriately, rather than increase the already significant number of characteristics.

[Sean Waters]

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Are all skills now based on a CHAR roll, or none?  If none, DEX is Init only, INT is PER only (or eliminated entirely) and PRE is PRE attacks only.  I think your intent is that all skills at 3 points are a CHAR roll.

 

It is up to you when you buy the skill.  You either make it a Background Skill (I would prefer we go back to General Skill) or assign it to a characteristic, which would have to be the ones that the rules show are associated with that skill (so you can not assign Acrobatics as an INT based skill), or whatever you like if it is currently a  Background Skill, so long as that allocation makes sense, as judged by how high the GM raises his or her eyebrows on seeing it.

 

If it is assigned a characteristic, it becomes a skill that uses that characteristic, for all purposes, including Skill Levels i.e. PS: Doctor (INT based) benefits from skill levels with Intellect skills. 

 

If it is not assigned a characteristic then it has a base roll of 11 and is a Background Skill and you can apply levels that affect background skills.  

 

Generally, as most characters elevate most characteristics, skills will be assigned to characteristics but if you want a character who is not particularly naturally gifted but works hard then buy all your skills as Background Skills, you might want to not bother increasing your characteristics but buy lots of skills and Background Skill Levels.