Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

[eriktheguy]

I'm a little bit new, so I have occasional stupid questions I haven't been able to find in an FAQ.

 

I noticed that for knowledges you can base them on 11- or (9+Int/5)-. It costs extra to use the second option (3pts instead of 2). Many other skills seem to follow this pattern. It makes sense if you're making powerful heroes, the extra cost is worth it if your characteristic is 18 or higher. But in a campaign with heroes based on 50pts, I find it a bit odd. Given the ranges of human intelligence, it seems that a stupid historian and a skilled historian would have about the same capabilities. You need to get towards the legendary level to make a difference. It's a very small difference but it seems weird that spending 5 points on intelligence doesn't affect my character's abilities in historical or occult knowledge.

 

Is this an example of a rule that doesn't work very well for lower powered heroes, or is it just my personal bias coming from other RPGs to assume that characteristics should strongly affect skills? Does anyone have some strongly recommended house-rules that I should be recommending to our GM for a low-powered campaign? (he is also new to the game).

[griffinman01]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

To be honest, 50 points is pretty low for a campaign. Even games where you play normal humans, 100-150 points is generally the norm.

 

As for the KS, at lower levels of intelligence, spending the point on basing it off of INT doesn't make much of a difference, however if you have 20 or so INT, you get +2 to the roll for 1 point. Plus, if you're buying a lot of KS, you could go with a skill enhancer like Scholar which costs 3 points but reduces the cost of each KS by 1 point (in other words, you save points if you buy 3 or more KS).

 

As for house rules, the game is very open to using them. Everything in the book is pretty balanced but it's also very open to alterations and you'll find that most people have some kind of house rule to help smooth things over, to clarify something, or just save some time calculating. If your GM wants, he can alter the effect of the KS where you can add your INT bonus to the base roll for 1 point (11 +(INT/5)-). Normally that's a huge benefit, but if you're running a low-point game I think it'll be fine.

[eriktheguy]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

Thanks for the information. When you say 100 points do you mean 100 points + bonus points from matching complications?

 

Because we're built on 50 points, plus 25 matching complications. I think that means you get 75 points if you meet the matching complications points (but no more than that even if you take more than 25 complication points).

 

Since our characteristics are low I'll ask him if we can just switch from 11 to 8+Int/5 for free instead of costing extra.

[Beast]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

if you are going to have lots of KSs,I'd go with a 13 int and Scholar

you will know have a base 12- roll(=approx 74% success) and each KS costs 2pts

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

Buying up your INT to benefit a single KS is not cost effective, but if you have a pile of KS it is. Also, INT is the basis for INT rolls and PER rolls in addition to KS. In my games the bonus to PER rolls is worth it right there.

 

Part of the disconnect between a smart historian and a stupid historian is that knowledge (and hence KS) are not exclusively based on intelligence. The stupid historian might be obsessed with important dates and so he has spent a lot of time going over historical timelines. Sure it takes him longer to learn the information than the smart historian, but he has the tenacity to do it. The amount of time it takes to learn something in an RPG is generally rather vague, so you don't see that distinction between smart and stupid so much.

[psyber624]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

The pricing structure is more about balance than anything else. You can buy lots of skills cheap (2 points each) that do not depend on your INT or you can spend 1 more point per skill and gain the benefits of your intelligence on your use of the skill. It costs more to allow INT to be used because of the value that could potentially be gained by doing so (if you have an INT of 40 that is WAY better than an 11- roll, but still only costs 1 extra point on the skill).

 

As for the disconnect do not forget that knowledge and intellect are very different things. Yes, Intellect can help with the gaining of knowledge, but even people with very small INT scores can have extensive knowledge. As an example I know several "Jocks" with near encyclopedic knowledge of all things football, however they are considered far less than smart by any standards. If they were to be created in Hero they might have INT 7 and then buy KS: Football at the 11- value, and then buy up lots of +'s for it (at 1 pt each) so they could have KS: Football at 17- even tho their INT is only a 7.

 

As always HERO is about options. If you want the power that can come from having a High INT to apply to your KS rolls you can, but it costs more. Or if you have a low INT score (or don't want your INT to benefit your ability) you can buy the skills cheaper, but they will not change based on your INT.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

Thanks for the information. When you say 100 points do you mean 100 points + bonus points from matching complications?

 

Because we're built on 50 points, plus 25 matching complications. I think that means you get 75 points if you meet the matching complications points (but no more than that even if you take more than 25 complication points).

 

Since our characteristics are low I'll ask him if we can just switch from 11 to 8+Int/5 for free instead of costing extra.

 

No, that means you have 50 Point characters. Matching Complications do not add, unmatched complications subtract. You have 50 Point Characters, which is a very low point total. I would say too low.

 

The benefit of INT Based Knowledge Skills will only be realized if you have INT at 18 or higher (giving a 13-) and multiple INT based skills (which encapsulate more than Knowledge Skills). You do have to factor in, if you're looking for points efficiency and not concept, if the 8 points to get INT up to 18 is costing you more or less than it would to get all your INT based skills up to 13-. It's almost certain that if you have two non-Knowledge Skill based on INT that spending 3 points to raise your INT roll to 12- (13 INT) is cheaper than buying them up separately. But it takes 4 Knowledge Skills (be they KS, AK, Cuk, etc) to do the same.

 

And then you have to factor in your base INT Roll, and most importantly your Perception Roll, which is the other major benefit of a higher INT.

 

But, if you're campaign is intent on sticking to that low a point total, I would actually recommend switching your skill rolls to 8+CHAR/3, it allows for much more granularity (and variety) in the tighter cluster of Characteristic totals you will end up in.

[Lucius]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

I'd be interested to hear more of this campaign. I've played some low point characters myself, although I'm running a super high point fantasy game now.

 

When someone on the boards says "X point characters" they usually mean to include Complications; so if you said you were using 75 pt characters it would express much more clearly what you're actually working with. And that IS pretty low points.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

House of the Palindromedary

[Ndreare]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

I would like to here about your game. 75 points is about the lowest I have scene people play and can be very dangerous in a world with violence.

Is the setting modern, sci-fi, fantasy or something else?

[eriktheguy]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

The GM/storyteller/whathaveyou made it 75 points based on my suggestion (he wanted us to be believable humans), and I thought that normal, hero and superhero were all intended for player characters. I looked up the value for skilled normals (thinking that hero was for modest superpowers and superhero was for crazy super powers). I was thinking that normal was the category for believable humans. So if we were thinking of doing something along the lines of agents and soldiers and the like but wanted to keep things 'realistic' and within the realm of possibility would you guys suggest "Standard Heroic"?

 

I guess I could recommend he use the chart from 6E1 35 to set maxima if he wants to keep characteristics and abilities humanly realistic? 175 points seemed like a lot to me when you can spend 10 to become many times stronger than an average human, but messing around with builds showed me that those points can get spent fast. An example of a character I want to build with this many points is based on Mulder from X-files. It's a horror themed campaign.

 

So complications don't grant you extra points, they take away some points if you don't choose them. A Standard Heroic character would get 175 character points and 50 in complications, and would lose 25 of their character points if they only took 25 in complications?

 

Thanks for the information.

[Alcibiades]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

If it helps, here's a (fifth-edition) version of Mulder. He's 147 points. http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptationstv/xfiles/fox.html

[ghost-angel]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

The GM/storyteller/whathaveyou made it 75 points based on my suggestion (he wanted us to be believable humans)' date=' and I thought that [i']normal[/i], hero and superhero were all intended for player characters. I looked up the value for skilled normals (thinking that hero was for modest superpowers and superhero was for crazy super powers). I was thinking that normal was the category for believable humans. So if we were thinking of doing something along the lines of agents and soldiers and the like but wanted to keep things 'realistic' and within the realm of possibility would you guys suggest "Standard Heroic"?

 

I guess I could recommend he use the chart from 6E1 35 to set maxima if he wants to keep characteristics and abilities humanly realistic? 175 points seemed like a lot to me when you can spend 10 to become many times stronger than an average human, but messing around with builds showed me that those points can get spent fast. An example of a character I want to build with this many points is based on Mulder from X-files. It's a horror themed campaign.

 

So complications don't grant you extra points, they take away some points if you don't choose them. A Standard Heroic character would get 175 character points and 50 in complications, and would lose 25 of their character points if they only took 25 in complications?

 

Thanks for the information.

 

'Normal Human' isn't always in the points. Mostly it's the experience of the person being played. It is suggested that your average person on the street be built on a low number of points - but the whole point of being in a game is you're not just the average joe on the streets, you're a little better, a little stronger, know a little more, able to do a little more.

 

In that sense, 'Normal' is going to all be in the ranges of your Characteristics and Skill Rolls, with possible a few Talents, definitely some Perks, and make a trick or two (like Talents, but built with powers, say a cowboy who ca "feather the hammer" and get off three really fast shots when joe-average could just get one has an Autofire capability for Guns).

 

I recommend not just Characteristic Maxima, but Skill Roll Maxima as well, it'll keep things from getting into the Epic Range, and down in the Believable range.

 

Your assessment of how Matching Complications work is correct. If you are a 175 Point Character, you are a 175 Point Character. If you need 50 Points of Matching Complications you start subtracting untaken Complications from your Point Total. I don't know anyone whose ever taken less than the full point requirement needed though.

[Alcibiades]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

If I wrote myself up, I would be at least 50 points including all the Area Knowledges. "Normal" is a vague term.

[Lucius]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

I don't know anyone whose ever taken less than the full point requirement needed though.

 

I've been known to.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

I've been known to.

 

Also - I'm a liar. I found one of my own characters where I took less than the full requirement of Complications.

 

Amendment: It's very rare to take less than the full set of Matching Complications.

[Ndreare]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

My players will often take TBA complications. Meaning to be announced. The as they need it, think of one or I think of one for them we just add it.

[Blades]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

I play a varient for low point characters. [Decimal heros]. I let a spreadsheet (Excel) roll the dice. I use this as my dice rolling equation. RAND()*5+RAND()*5+RAND()*5+3.

The rand()5 rolls a random decimal number between 0 and 5, like 2.345. So I get a number between 3 and 18 like 10.654.

Then if i don't round off the stat or skill rolls, every point (or fraction of a point) matters.

IQ 10 has a char roll of 11. IQ 11 has a char roll or 11.2. Same concept for skills rolls. You can extend this concept for everything. Only speed does not handle decimals well.

You can also raise char or skills by less then a full point.

If your not playing where a computer is practical, you can pre-print a page of these die rolls and cross them off as they are used.

Probably works best for small groups at first.

[Markdoc]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

As for the point total, we have played games starting at 75, 50 and even 25 points. The GM needs to adjust challenges accordingly, but there is generally no problem. It's just different. As for "normal" people being 100-150 points .... well, I guess everyone has their own take on normal

 

Generally I think of 150 points as Heroic, action movie hero level.

 

Certainly, at 75 points, you can build a tough guy who can kick the **** out of a bunch of actual normals, without too much difficulty, but he likely won't also be a skilled surgeon/spy.

 

cheers, Mark

[eriktheguy]

Re: Low-point characters, intelligence doesn't benefit knowledges?

 

Thanks for all the advices, you guys are terrifically helpful. I'll be recommending a 150-175ish point range to the GM. Very low point characters sound interesting but we'll be trying a more typical play experience for our first time.

[psyber624]

Another thing to note is that "Believeably Human" is far more about Maxima and what is allowed than it is about point totals. There are any number of real world athlete's and such that you could easily build on well over 100 points if you wanted to, and even if you are allowed to buy "gear" without CP most Elite Special Forces types are going to rack up the points really quickly.

[griffinman01]

Another thing to note is that "Believeably Human" is far more about Maxima and what is allowed than it is about point totals. There are any number of real world athlete's and such that you could easily build on well over 100 points if you wanted to' date=' and even if you are allowed to buy "gear" without CP most Elite Special Forces types are going to rack up the points really quickly.[/quote']

 

That's not even counting skills. Most normal people have a ton of skills that go beyond what would be considered an 'everyman' skill. I would have a 12- for at least 3 science skills (Chemistry, Biochemisty, and Genetics) based on the book description and another few at 11- just from college. Anyone with the lowest belt in a martial art would have probably 3 martial skills (strike, grab, throw) and that would run around 10 points.

 

Batman is an excellent example of someone who would be "normal" from a characteristics standpoint but would get expensive based on gear, skills, and martial abilities.