The Dreaded "Skills" and "Feats"

[James Maliszewski]

As I've explained elsewhere, I plan to take my skeptical players through their first foray into OD&D this Sunday. As of this moment, I have three confirmed players (a cleric, a fighting man, and a dwarf), with possibly one additional player, schedule permitting. I partially sold them on the idea by saying that I'd permit them to try to do anything they wanted within the bounds of their character class and background but without the need for sub-systems dealing with "skills" or "feats" in an explicit way.

Now, I'm still committed to this, but I do worry about how I might handle things. Ideally, I'd like to have a simple way to simulate whether they succeed or fail. My general inclination is to ask myself whether a particular task is reasonable within the bounds of their class (combat stuff for a fighting man, "priestly" things for a cleric, and arcane matters for a magic-user) and their background (such as race, upbringing, etc.). If it is and it's not too outlandish, I'll just let them do it. If it is and it's a bit more extreme, there should be either a chance of failure or (if it's, say, a combat maneuver) a penalty to the die roll. Likewise, if it's outside their class or background, I won't allow it unless it's something any person might reasonably attempt (like climbing or swimming).

So, let me draw upon the collective wisdom of this board: how do you handle such things? If a fighting man wants to try and push his opponent back with a forceful charge, how do you simulate it? If a magic-user wants to affect more than one target with a single charm person spell by taking more time to cast it, how would you handle it? What about a cleric who wants to pick a lock? Etc, etc.

I don't necessarily want grand unified theories of task resolution in OD&D but it would be nice to hear when and if people allow such things and how, if at all, they adjudicate them mechanically.

[doc]

Okay, let's make it nice and simple. Anything that might fall under their sphere of influence (such as a magic user knowing about arcane creatures, or a fighting man being able to use an opponent's weight against him) would require a simple stat check of 1d10 (or 3d6 for all those TFT fanatics). If it is an easy task, roll under your stat. If it is a difficult task, roll under 1/2 your stat.

For a fighting man trying to push his opponent back, he would first roll to hit to see if he can psysically touch his enemy, then roll under ST if the enemy is man sized, or under 1/2 ST if it is ogre sized or so (pushing back a critter larger than that would just not be possible for a human).

A magic user can cast more than a single charm at a time if he has the spell slots. So a magic user with, say, three spell slots at first level can attempt to charm three people. But that would of course use up all his first level slots for the day.

And finally, a cleric cannot pick a lock because that would be infringing on what makes the thief class unique, just like a thief could not turn undead.

Doc

[calithena]

This older thread might be of interest to you on the combat stuff:

odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=1184165982

As to noncombat, Foster has pointed out that generally you do things on a 1-2 roll of 1d6 in OD&D. You can modify this for all kinds of things - attribute scores, ease or difficulty of task, etc. I use +1 for a 14-17 attribute score and +2 for an 18, for example. In other words, use the Open Doors rules from AD&D for a universal task resolution system!

[foster1941]

A point that often comes up when this topic is discussed at ENWorld (usually in relation to C&C there, but the same general principle applies to D&D) is that one of the reasons players who like the skills and feats of d20 like them because it lets their character do "special" things that not everyone else can do, and a general ad-hoc system tends to lose that distinction by applying the same chance of success for everyone (or at least everyone with the same class and comparable stats). It's not just that the player is going to want his character to be able to trip or disarm or be a prodigious knot-tier or have expert knowledge of gemcraft or whatever, he's going to want to be able to do those things as a speciality, to be better at them than the average person (i.e. the other players' characters).

How you choose to address that is up to you (and is a matter of how much you're willing to indulge your players, how much de facto d20 you're willing to allow to slip in through the back door) but it's something to keep in mind, to make sure you at least understand where the players' complaints are likely to be coming from -- it's not just that they want to be able to do stuff beyond the scope of the rules-as-written, they want to be able to do it better than everybody else.

[korgoth]

Caveat: I haven't actually run OD&D yet, but I am experienced with Classic.

I like the good ol' roll 1d20 under your relevant attribute. As others have pointed out, you can either halve the attribute for difficult tasks, or simply assign bonuses and penalties based on how tough the task is (though I firmly believe that routine tasks should succeed automatically with no roll).

You can also use opposed checks, or even assign half of the opposing figure's attribute as a penalty (so if an Ogre has an 18 Str, you can try to push it backward by scoring a to hit vs. AC 9 [armor doesn't count] and then rolling under your Str -9 [1/2 of 18]).

When people get tricky in combat, you can also rule that they act last in the round... after all, if the guy runs up to push the Ogre (I assume off a bridge or something, since otherwise there's not much point) the Ogre will probably get a chance to smash him first. You could even pile on the damage that the Ogre does with his attack as an additional penalty to the eventual Str roll, if you want.

This kind of stuff probably doesn't need to be codified ahead of time. Just go with what is reasonable on the spot.

If a character does very well with a particular "signature move" over time, perhaps rolling a 20 in there at some point, you might even decide to reward him on his next level gain formally by giving him a unique bonus to doing that move... this may or may not be something you want to do (since you probably don't want people to start expecting these things, or expecting to get more than one, or trying to make it into a rules subsystem, etc.) but some groups might enjoy it.

Likewise, monsters can have signature moves, too. I think they can be memorable if used very sparingly.

[wulfgar]

foster1941 said:

How you choose to address that is up to you (and is a matter of how much you're willing to indulge your players, how much de facto d20 you're willing to allow to slip in through the back door) but it's something to keep in mind, to make sure you at least understand where the players' complaints are likely to be coming from -- it's not just that they want to be able to do stuff beyond the scope of the rules-as-written, they want to be able to do it better than everybody else.

Reading this made me think that perhaps the different takes on character specialization- being able to do something no one else can- are directly tied to the typical lethality in each game. In games where PCs are less likely to die, it easier to be the specialist who is needed to do certain things. In OD&D where somone a single blow is a very lethal threat to a 1st level character and body counts can be very high- what happens to the party if only 1 person can find traps, bust open doors, sneak, or climb walls? Well if that person dies, then the party is screwed.

[James Maliszewski]

foster1941 said:

to make sure you at least understand where the players' complaints are likely to be coming from -- it's not just that they want to be able to do stuff beyond the scope of the rules-as-written, they want to be able to do it better than everybody else.

This is an astute point. I'm honestly not yet sure where my players' concerns lie. I am hoping that they are simply a matter of habit, having played games that include tons of skills and feat-like abilities, they simply have come to expect them. It's not so much that they need them or even want them but that they're accustomed to having them. They are now part of the "mental furniture" they associate with RPG characters. Now, if it turns out that I am not correct on this point, I'll do my best to seek out the true source of the problem and respond accordingly.

But, yes, that's a great insight and one I must take to heart.

[Finarvyn]

If I have a special skill that is needed (such as picking locks) I would allow the thief to be the go-to person wherever possible, but if the thief dies I might allow for some sort of dexterity roll among the remaining players.

The key is that as long as a specialist exists that person gets the limelight when that situation comes into play, but if no such person exists in the party I tend to default to allowing the others at least some chance of keeping the storyline alive.

[makofan]

What should be unique is the skills the player brings to playing his character - his brain, his ingenuity, his intuition, his passion

[calithena]

Here's an old K&K thread of mine on this issue:

knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1266

Foster has a point about people wanting to be better than others at particular skills. You can give these bonuses to classes and even have individual 'tweaks' if you want, building up as you go. Then you're starting to move in the direction of rules-lite d20, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what people want.

[makofan]

I have two clerics in my online campaign, and already they are completely distinct people. I just don't see the need for skills.

[coffee]

This thread again illustrates one of the great beauties of the Original Dungeons & Dragons game.

All of the viewpoints discussed above are valid. There are no wrong answers. You can do anything you want with the game.

I, myself, agree with makofan and that's how I'm going to run it - your character's uniqueness is what you bring to the table. But I can also see how others would have it in their games, and I wouldn't mind playing in such a game.

It's a good discussion.

[Deleted]

Absolutely; I second that assessment. Since I come from a (for the most part) AD&D 2nd. Ed. background, & now (& probably forever will) run a R.C./OD&D hybrid campaign, I allow characters' trying something "out of their element" a simple d20 roll under the appropriate attribute. I'll generally assign a -10 to their roll if it is completely out of context for them, or a -5 if it is something that would fall into a "general" or "all-purpose"catagory. I've always favored the attribute roll: whatever sounds like the most logical attribute is the one that is rolled against. However, as makofan stated, the player brings the most important skills to the table. That's what I love so dearly about the earlier (& first) editions of this game: simple adjudication. No need for clunky rules; a simple judgement call by the DM is all it takes!

[crimhthanthegreat]

It looks to me as though you have gotten some great advice. I am looking forward to hearing how the game went. Best of luck, just do what feels right to you as the ref at the moment, don't be afraid to freewheel and create on the fly, whether they love it or hate it, give them something that they will be talking about for a while. Sometimes people don't like something until they experience it and then have time to think about what happened.

[Arminath]

When it comes to simple dungeon actions, I keep a cheat sheet of things I found reading through the LBB that use a simple d6 roll:

Secret Door Detection: 1-2 (Elf 1-4, Dwarf 1-3 if in stonework)
Open Stuck/Locked Door: 1-2 (Hobbit 1)
Trap Activation: 1-2
Listening for Noise: 1-2 (Human 1)
Suprise: 1-2
Hiding: 1-2

For things that makes sense where a 2nd character can help then I grant a +1 bonus (Open Doors on a 1-3, halflings 1-2). Using special tools can grant a bonus of +1 as well (using a listening cone to Listen on a 1-3/1-2 for humans; camoflage clothing/cloaks to Hide a 1-3, etc). I have very rarely given a +2 bonus to an action. Since we don't make extensive use of thieves (I allow them, but players don't like them), a player that plays a character that has a Dexterity of 15 or more and restricts himself to non-metal armor gains a +1 bonus to his rolls in addition to any teamwork/special tools bonuses.

[Stonegiant]

You might want to download the free copy of BFRPG by Solomoriah over at Dragonsfoot (He is on this board as well but doesn't have a link to his game here). In his game he came up with a very simple attribute check system that improves with level, it wouldn't be hard at all to adapt that system to OD&D.

[Finarvyn]

One thing I have considered in the "Feats" area is making a small list for each class. Maybe a half dozen things for each, not the huge page-after-page thing. I kind of like the "Cleave" feat for fighters (if you kill something and have extra damage left over, you get to extend on to attack the next critter to use up the rest of the damage) and can think of several Magic-user feats that could be neat (max damage for spells, faster casting time, higher casting level, or whatever).

Feats aren't so bad if there aren't too many of them and the rest of the game scale isn't inflated, too. Having a short list would allow different players to pick different feats without getting out of control.

Just me thinking out loud...

[makofan]

I think Cleave is simulated by the multiple attacks a fighter gets against level 1 monsters

[Zulgyan]

I've been toying around with the idea of "Heoric Traits" and "Super-Heroic Traits".

Kind of "feat-like" abilities you gain at levels 4 and 8, choosen from a small pool of options.

[badger2305]

zulgyan said:

I've been toying around with the idea of "Heoric Traits" and "Super-Heroic Traits".

Kind of "feat-like" abilities you gain at levels 4 and 8, choosen from a small pool of options.

Do you have to make them class specific? Just a thought.

[Zulgyan]

For the moment, I was only considering them for the F-M.

[Stonegiant]

I would be willing to say that in essence the concept of the "feats" is not something that every old school gamer would be opposed to, my complaint with them (as they are presented in 3/3.5/3.75/4 edition) is that they aren't heroic abilities, they are really more like super skills and everyone has the same ones. If I were going to introduce a concept of heroic traits/abilities into the game then I would not present any sort of choices at all, instead I would tell the player to describe to me a heroic (or anti-heroic, if playing the "dark" side) trait that they think their character has developed over during the campaign and then I would work with them to adjudicate the mechanics of that ability (eg Derick the Dwarf seems to always use his crossbow in combat, The DM and the player decide that Derick will be +1 to hit and damage with his crossbow and if he spends 1 round aiming [giving up his attack that round] he will be +2 instead of +1; Shandar the Cleric has had great luck hiring Men at Arms, talking with people, etc. he is in fact so golden tongued that reaction rolls to him anyone with him are at an additional +2 and all of his hirings gain an additional +2 to their loyalty base, etc.). YMMV

[badger2305]

stonegiant said:

I would be willing to say that in essence the concept of the "feats" is not something that every old school gamer would be opposed to, my complaint with them (as they are presented in 3/3.5/3.75/4 edition) is that they aren't heroic abilities, they are really more like super skills and everyone has the same ones. If I were going to introduce a concept of heroic traits/abilities into the game then I would not present any sort of choices at all, instead I would tell the player to describe to me a heroic (or anti-heroic, if playing the "dark" side) trait that they think their character has developed over during the campaign and then I would work with them to adjudicate the mechanics of that ability (eg Derick the Dwarf seems to always use his crossbow in combat, The DM and the player decide that Derick will be +1 to hit and damage with his crossbow and if he spends 1 round aiming [giving up his attack that round] he will be +2 instead of +1; Shandar the Cleric has had great luck hiring Men at Arms, talking with people, etc. he is in fact so golden tongued that reaction rolls to him anyone with him are at an additional +2 and all of his hirings gain an additional +2 to their loyalty base, etc.). YMMV

I like this idea very much. Have an exalt for that!

[Zulgyan]

Hey, that's a great idea!

[jjarvis]

You could always let characters get better at the things they do. Let's say on a few adventures smiley the hobbit makes a few successful and meaningful hear noises rolls, when the character goes up a level the player could rightfully say (or the DM could secretly note) "Smiley, +1 to hear noise". One character manages to avoid a couple of pits, by dumb luck and charcetr option- "+1 to avoid pits". There are plenty of actions in the game, one doesn't need a long but still limited list of options.

[badger2305]

Going back to an earlier part of the discussion, I just came up with a way to allow for players to attempt to do things, using a simple stat-check system. Here goes: uncertain tasks may be resolved by rolling a number of D6s against a specified character stat, the number of dice increasing relative to the difficulty of the task.

"Aha!" I hear you say, "but the player will know the difficulty of the task by the number of the dice they are supposed to roll, and will try to find some way to avoid failure!" You're right. Have the player roll 3d6 all the time - and the referee rolls the rest, behind the screen. The difficulty rating would look like this:

• Easy (but still uncertain) task: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 1d6 and subtracts the result from the player's roll. Compare against selected stat - under the stat = success.
  
• Average difficulty: player rolls 3d6
  
• Hard: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 1d6 and adds that to the player's roll.
  
• Very hard: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 2d6 and adds that to the player's roll
  
• Impossible: player rolls 3d6, referee rolls 3d6 and adds that to the player's roll.
  

In all cases, the referee needs to do two things. They must roll several dice, but only count some of them, and they must interpret the result of both dice rolls taken together. So if the player's roll would indicate success (or failure), but the ref's roll pushes it the other way, then the referee needs to explain the fickle finger of fate, despite heroic effort.

The nice thing about this system is that it preserves uncertainty, while giving the player some control through their own dice rolling. It also should run very, very fast and not disrupt the flow of the game.

Reactions? Obvious holes I've missed?

[joethulhu]

I think that that type of skill resolution, based on stats, puts too big an emphasis on raw attributes, especially if you're only using the 3 LBBs in your OD&D game. Basing the results more on class and level seem more in line with the spirit of the original game.

[korgoth]

For myself, I like having skill success depend largely on stats. Two reasons:

1. It is simple... you don't have to track a whole bunch of bonuses/points, etc.

2. I find it realistic... your character is not a professional leatherworker, he's a professional Fighting Man. He learned some leatherworking as a youth, but whether he excels or flops at it has more to do with his raw potential, because he never devoted himself to it as a craftsman.

So I just allow a character to have assumed skills appropriate to his background and success determined either automatically (for simple or impossible tasks) or by a 1d20 roll vs. attribute.

[joethulhu]

What you find realistic makes it unrealstic for me. ;-).

Concerning Raw Potential: In OD&D, you can still be a fighting man with a 3 Strength. Sure that FM gets a -20% penalty to his XP, but he can still fight as well as any other fighting-man of his equivalent level. STR doesn't affect encumbrance in OD&D, so he can wear the same gear and use the same weapons. If his raw potential has so little bearing on his ability to fight, which is his primary class ability, why should it have so much more weight when it comes to some kind of skill check?

Skill systems based on stats make more sense to me with the "Ability Inflation" of OD&D's successors and supplements, not with classic OD&D's somewhat she-yitty 3d6 rolls. ;D

[James Maliszewski]

joethulhu said:

I think that that type of skill resolution, based on stats, puts too big an emphasis on raw attributes, especially if you're only using the 3 LBBs in your OD&D game. Basing the results more on class and level seem more in line with the spirit of the original game.

I'm increasingly inclined to agree. One of the action resolution systems I'm toying with to handle things the rules don't cover and whose outcomes are uncertain gives a bonus to rolls based on level and class (if appropriate) and very little to abilities.