Vondy

So, Cameron finds military hardware salacious? Maybe Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round by the Dead Kennedy's wasn't so far off the mark, after all...

Neat idea.

It's more presentation than mechanics, I think. The system itself is very flexible and extensible, but in the main rules text that is all strongly implied rather than explicitly stated. It's borne out to a degree in the Rules FAQ, but the explicit discussion occurs in TUS and 6e Skills. Unfortunately, many people take RAW at face value without catching the nuance inherent in the structure and examples.

I didn't say you could. I said the example merely referenced ONE type of skill and did not preclude other types of skills, or indicate only characteristic based skills were valid types of skills where skill levels are concerned. Agility, intellect, interaction, area, knowledge, professional, and science skills are all ceremonies / types of skills. However, both 5e RAW and Steve's ruling explicitly state the GM is the final arbiter of what skills are related. If they say "all anthropology skills" are related, you can apply skill levels to them even if they include PS, KS, and Ss. What is more the 5e text itself says skills don't necessarily have to be in the same category to be regarded as such. See that quote above. RAW supports a very flexible application of skill levels.

Which means nothing vis-a-vis whether or not the example is proscriptive. Different word. Different meaning. One mandates, the other forbids. The example only identifies one type of skill and prescribes its relevant breadth. Inferring non-characteristic based skill levels are not types of skills does not follow. Again, it is not proscriptive. AK, KS, PS, LS, and SS are also types of skills. And, just to put a bow on it, here what Steve said about it: "As indicated in the Rules FAQ and TUS 301, a character has to buy 5-point Skill Levels with a specific type of Background Skill (e.g., all KSs, all SSs)" Its not just in TUS. Its also the Rules FAQ. In other words, that the categories of background skills are skill types is RAW. If you read it with a careful eye, the meaning in FRED is plain.

Skills p.9 proposes using Professional Skills as a means of combining multiple skills. I think Steve's insistence that such a skill be bought at 20- and leverage the exceptional skills rules (also in TUS) might be wonky and require some refinement, but the seed is there.

Yes. I like watching you fail. Schadenfreude.

FRED doesn't explicitly say "background skills," but the Skill Level's description on p. 48-49 says: "5 points: +1 for a group of similar skills (e.g., +1 with all Agility Skills)." "8 points: +1 with all non-combat skills." First, "non-combat skills" certainly applies to most non-combat skills. Second, I read the example "Agility Skills" as as descriptive rather than proscriptive. Tangentially, would that not include "PS: Social Dancing" if it were purchased as a dex skill? FRED also says... "Skills may be related without being in the same category; the GM is the final judge of whether or not skills are related." In any event, I have always interpreted FRED as allowing you to treat a related group of background skills as a "category." Lastly, Steve did validate this reading on his skill level table on p. 301 of Skills (and in TUS). There the expanded description of 5 point levels includes "e.g., all Knowledge Skills" as one of the examples. I did not take it as "new," however. It was always strongly implied by a careful read of FRED.

Will look when I get home. On the water taxi right now. It's gorgeous out!

They can. 5e had a breakdown comparing combat to non-combat skills. I think the basic underlying principle and comparisons translate to 6e easily enough.

You mean, like, the Internet?

In many games not being stunned is the difference between victory and defeat, escape or capture, or even life and a coup de grace. It still retains vital utility in combat. Com, which I like, never did

I find the 6e sidebar option of the 5e rule introduces the potential for yet more fiddly-think. I find the distinction logical, but otiose.

You mean porn in church? Yep, that's Ballard.

I'm not sure why the American is telling the British guy this... The British Army owns 50 Apache Helicopters. You signed a 3bn deal to upgrade them last summer. That mouthy prince fellow... Harry is it?... is one of the pilots.

How did you come up with your 'handle' (forum name)? My name is David. My college era gaming group called me "Dave Man" and then "D-Man" when they got lazy. I do not know why. It was stupid. Embracing this pointless nickname, my handle back on the Cybergames boards and then the Hero boards and then these here resurrected Hero boards was D-Man. However, back during the flame-wars of old (today is weak tea compared to 2003-2005) I led a coalition of like-minded flame-war disrupting and derailing dastards under the moniker of Von D-Man, the monocole doffing, hessian boot wearing, kaisereich uniform wearing, bad German accent wielding Supreme Leader of PAID in Full. Whenever the flame warriors gave up and surrendered a thread (and boo-hoo'd at me in whiny private messages) we informed them they had been "Paid in Full." Yet, someone took to abbreviating Von D-Man as VD-Man and, well, no thank you. Since ScubaHERO had taken to referring to me as "Von-D," and occasionally "Vondy," I asked Simon to change my handle to Vondy. It has been thus for years on end now. What was the first tabletop RPG you played? The blue-covered1977 Dungeons and Dragon boxed set. It was 1979. I was 7. I played a ton of early games, however, and I loved a lot of them. What was the first tabletop RPG you GMed? Same. What are you currently playing/GMing? I have been running FFG Star Wars, but last week converted the characters to Hero 5th. I have a street-level TAS style Hero game I want to run in the near future. When did you start to play Hero? I first played Hero in 1983, but didn't settle on it as my system of choice until 1991.

I don't see why this is an issue. If you want to do that, do that. People get too caught up in rules as opposed to reasonable rulings. It has precedent in 5e, is not a significant departure from the 6e sidebar, and is easy to articulate. Or, do you need to make an Ego Roll first?

I don't know about 6e, but... In 5e there was an optional rule allowing you to choose EGO or PRE to resist presence attacks. Personally, I think both characteristics make sense. A person with a high presence is not, typically a shrinking violet or easily cowed. A person with a high ego is strong-minded or strong-willed, even if they are an introvert. In my games, I allow the player to defend with the better of the two.

I've found the combo skill option for backgrounds in the TUS is fair and workable. Being liberal about the expert skill enhancer (I allow any skill that fits the concept, not just background skills) also works pretty well. And, when you hit 20+ points in related skills, Universals start to make sense.

Its really genre dependent, I think. In a game that leverages powers heavily (super powers, flashy magic, etc) it would make a difference. In an espionage or fantasy barbarians game, much less so.

Another thing to keep in mind is whether the equipment is redundant. Let's say I'm playing a Super-Fed with ST 80 and DEF of 40. I can punch for 16 DC and throw trucks at people (which, depending on DEF/BDY could also be 14-16DC). It also so happens that its agency policy that I have to carry a semi-automatic handgun (RKA 1d6+1 of 4DC). Yes, its killing damage, but even so, tossing a Mack truck onto a normal is also lethal. As a rule, I would not charge the brick for the handgun that does half to one-quarter of the characters usual DCs. Its not essential to the character, it can be taken away, and its less effective than his mainline attacks. In fact, I had a super-fed just like this who early in his career consistently left his service weapon in his desk drawer. It was only a series of warnings and ass chewings that led to a begrudging acceptance of "policy" that led to him carrying it. And then, he only used for presence attacks, or to hand to the normal agents in an emergency. Ergo, he carried their backup piece.

If you do want some speed differentiation, a simple option might be: Important characters are Speed 4 (Phases 3, 6, 9, 12). Supporting characters are Speed 2 (Phases 6, 12). As a result, you still only have four phases to deal with: 3, 6, 9, 12. That requires slightly more tracking, however.

There is one material difference: endurance and recovery per turn. Characters with lower speeds take fewer endurance burning actions per turn. As a result, a Speed 4 game will typically require characters be build with higher endurance and recovery scores than a Speed 2 game. Its not all semantics.

Correct.