|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 22, 2014 4:34:20 GMT -6
I was thinking about classes the other day, and I noticed the AD&D 1E Ranger has static skills, that never improve: 50% chance for surprise, and tracking at 90%/10%. This is my favorite version of the Ranger, and got me thinking, why couldn't we do this for every class that has skills? This would be similar to the way I've seen a few people talk about putting the Thief skills at a flat 3 in 6 chance, so it wouldn't have to necessarily be percentile. It would be really simple, easy to stat up new classes, and balance them against each other. I know this would mean "character development" would be "boring", but I prefer a game about exploration and adventure.
Thoughts? Is there any downside I'm not thinking of?
Also by skills I don't necessarily mean skills like in d20, but anything from "surprise" to the Bard's "charm", to the Acrobat's "tumble", etc.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 22, 2014 5:10:10 GMT -6
why couldn't we do this for every class that has skills? That's pretty much how it is in the 3LBBs.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 22, 2014 6:30:07 GMT -6
jakdethe wrote: Your game results in one of roleplaying, rather than 'roll playing' and often metagaming, and the percentiles lend to the latter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 8:25:52 GMT -6
I wouldn't want to play a magic-user that could never learn any new spells, neither would I want a to play a Ranger that never got better at Rangering.
The whole point of playing a game with levels is that the character gets better as they level up.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 23, 2014 1:08:04 GMT -6
I wouldn't want to play a magic-user that could never learn any new spells, neither would I want a to play a Ranger that never got better at Rangering. The whole point of playing a game with levels is that the character gets better as they level up. That's a very good point. What if it was viewed more as "talents" or "boons", rather than skills? I feel like people complain the skills start off too low to be useful, and by the time your done adventuring you've rarely used them successfully. Is a there good in between or compromise?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2014 1:42:34 GMT -6
One measure of a PC's improvement is his ability to deal with more challenging circumstances. High level characters don't bash down doors, or surprise enemies any better, but they are still improved overall.
Similarly a low level thief generally finds himself operating on shallower dungeon levels, while a higher level thief could press to lower dungeon levels regardless of whether he has fiddly percentile skills that improve each level, or a static 4 in 6 (66.67%) chance of success at any act of subterfuge.
The character is improved in other dimensions (e.g., HD, saving throws, equipment, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 23, 2014 5:48:24 GMT -6
What if it was viewed more as "talents" or "boons", rather than skills? Or "feats!"
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Apr 23, 2014 6:34:50 GMT -6
What if it was viewed more as "talents" or "boons", rather than skills? Or "feats!" Don't say the F-Word!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 12:29:59 GMT -6
One measure of a PC's improvement is his ability to deal with more challenging circumstances. High level characters don't bash down doors, or surprise enemies any better, but they are still improved overall. Similarly a low level thief generally finds himself operating on shallower dungeon levels, while a higher level thief could press to lower dungeon levels regardless of whether he has fiddly percentile skills that improve each level, or a static 4 in 6 (66.67%) chance of success at any act of subterfuge. There is an important distinction between the main function of a class and secondary powers. A fighter fights, a magic-user casts spells and a thief sneaks around and picks locks. Just because a thief's skills and a ranger's tracking happen to employ the same mechanic (a d100 roll), doesn't mean they should be treated the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Apr 23, 2014 15:28:21 GMT -6
That is a little how the special "skills" of demi human races work : Elves detect secret doors on a 1-4, hobbits are able to hide in woodlands on 1-9 on a d10, masonery detection for dwarves (I personaly added "gold detection"), etc.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2014 18:13:50 GMT -6
When I read "skills" I automatically presumed it to include everything beyond fightin' and spell slinging. Maybe some are working with a tighter definition?
Anyway.
Another consideration is that a character can also improve by accumulating more skills, even if those skills don't get incrementally better. An example might be that a thief adds read languages at 3rd level, and then adds reading spell scrolls at 9th? level--so the breadth of his capabilities increases.
It's arguable that depth increments in things such as attack matrix, turning undead, backstab damage, and similar things are not out and out "improvements". Rather, they keep the player on even terms with the level of opposition he is most likely to face. Yes, the absolute numbers get bigger or smaller, but they retain approximately consistent proportions. I.e., it's an arms race and at any given level of ability both sides of the equation remain comparable.
Thinking in these terms, the "static skills" (such as 2 in 6, or 4 in 6) then achieve near enough to the same outcome without all the "rules fuss".
Additionally, most of the common dicing mechanics for "improving ability" have flaws such as: skill is initially too poor to be useful, skill is later too good to keep it interesting, and advancement is arbitrarily "capped" by the range of possible outcomes on a die, as well as the meta-game issues around who "has" these improving skills.
The static skills generally don't have any of these issues. And additionally they are much simpler to manage. Which, in my mind, is at least as important as all of my preceding waffle--especially when considering new players who don't "know all the rules".
Edit:
Another thing that comes to mind (particularly relevant to incremental percentile skills)...
Calculation of the actual percentile numbers is sufficiently complex that the referee will rarely know off the top of his head what every character's chance of success is for each of his skills.
For the first time then, knowledge of "the odds" now resides with the player rather than with the referee. During play the referee has to ask the player what his odds of success are! (or--rather impractically--figure it out from first principles each time or maintain a duplicate record of every PC). This is, in my view, the root of "rules lawyering" and is a problem we don't need to have.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2014 18:56:40 GMT -6
hobbits are able to hide in woodlands on 1-9 on a d10 Where does this one come from?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 23, 2014 19:03:00 GMT -6
For the first time then, knowledge of "the odds" now resides with the player rather than with the referee. During play the referee has to ask the player what his odds of success are! (or--rather impractically--figure it out from first principles each time or maintain a duplicate record of every PC). This is, in my view, the root of "rules lawyering" and is a problem we don't need to have. An excellent point, and clearly a potential source of misery for many a Game Master. On the flip side, a well-informed player can also remove some of the stress placed on the GM by knowing what the character can do: "I listen at the door ... (roll) ... and hear something if it's there." This removes a certain layer of fun from the game because players aren't as immersed in the action, but it can make the game rum smoother. In other words, it all comes down to the players. I have some players who are "rules lawyer" types and others who are not. When I have a party mostly composed of non-lawyer types, I feel free to give them more responsiblilty for number tracking but when I get groups of lawyers I feel the perverse urge to keep more numbers hidden from them.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 23, 2014 19:04:07 GMT -6
hobbits are able to hide in woodlands on 1-9 on a d10 Where does this one come from? I don't know it, either, so I assume it's not canon TSR. Maybe a house rule or Arduin or something like that?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2014 20:00:57 GMT -6
a well-informed player can also remove some of the stress placed on the GM by knowing what the character can do: "I listen at the door ... (roll) ... and hear something if it's there." This removes a certain layer of fun from the game because players aren't as immersed in the action, but it can make the game rum smoother. In a game I ran a while back I had players doing stuff like this: "I search for secret doors (throws a six-sided die); six. If it's there I find it!" I really felt these players pressuring for "rules control" of the game, and also that this manner dispelled any sense of immersion. In my view their sense of "rules entitlement" wasn't constructive. Now I do most of the non-combat dicing myself behind the ref's screen. So yes, much depends on the players. But I still prefer simple over complex
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 23, 2014 21:04:18 GMT -6
hobbits are able to hide in woodlands on 1-9 on a d10 Where does this one come from? I don't know it, either, so I assume it's not canon TSR. Maybe a house rule or Arduin or something like that? It looks like an adaptation of an ability mentioned in Holmes and originating in Chainmail: Chainmail, pg 29: "Remember that they are able to blend into the background and so make excellent scouts." Holmes, pg 7: "Out-of-doors they are difficult to see, having the ability to vanish into woods or undergrowth". There's no number associated with this, so could be considered a "6 in 6" chance; someone may have wanted to give them a small chance of failure hence the "9 in 10". Men & Magic doesn't have much text on Hobbit/Halflings, so Holmes presumably went back to Chainmail to see what it said. Particularly because M & M does reference Chainmail in regard to Halfling's accuracy with missile weapons. Holmes represented this in Basic by giving them a +1 to hit with missiles.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2014 23:38:20 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote: In full agreement. I would add linking character development to level progression seems more in keeping with 3E, character development through level is at odds with development through roleplay, this is the whole point of static abilities - character is built on deeds not improvement of stats. Linking character development to level is strictly a gaming convention or mechanism and nothing more. Even 'fighting and Spell slingin' might be considered in this light should one look to the separation between Chainmail's Mass combat/MTM and the battery for fantasy. Normal men, be they militia, regulars, veterans, elite, or fanatical, are figures in their own right differing from one another without the convention of levels.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on Apr 24, 2014 0:18:54 GMT -6
Lots of great ideas. I definitely agree with waysoftheearth, I was thinking a lot of this before. Especially the fact that chances for success relatively stay the same in most systems. You just can't beat simplicity. a well-informed player can also remove some of the stress placed on the GM by knowing what the character can do: "I listen at the door ... (roll) ... and hear something if it's there." This removes a certain layer of fun from the game because players aren't as immersed in the action, but it can make the game rum smoother. In a game I ran a while back I had players doing stuff like this: "I search for secret doors (throws a six-sided die); six. If it's there I find it!" I really felt these players pressuring for "rules control" of the game, and also that this manner dispelled any sense of immersion. In my view their sense of "rules entitlement" wasn't constructive. Now I do most of the non-combat dicing myself behind the ref's screen. So yes, much depends on the players. But I still prefer simple over complex I've had this happen so much lately, and it kills me. The way I've started to look at it now: if they are rules lawyers I'd rather them not have the power; and if they're not rules lawyers they won't miss the lack of control.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 24, 2014 0:38:59 GMT -6
Where does this one come from? I don't know it, either, so I assume it's not canon TSR. Maybe a house rule or Arduin or something like that? D&D Basic Rulebook, 1981: "Outdoors, halflings are difficult to spot, having the ability to seemingly vanish into woods or underbrush. Halflings have only a 10% chance of being detected in this type of cover, and even in dungeons there is a one-third chance (a roll of 1 or 2 on Id6) that a halfling will not be seen in normal light if the character finds some cover (such as shadows), and remains absolutely quiet and still."
|
|
luc
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 30
|
Post by luc on May 27, 2014 22:11:05 GMT -6
I'm quite taken with this idea of skill simplicity, as it would mean that the DM only really needs to know if a character has the ability or not.
How about something like this? ----------
A Thief begins with 2 skills of their choice. Each level they may choose one new skill. The chance for success of any skill they know is 4 in 6.
* Find / Remove traps * Detect secret doors * Hide in shadows * Move silently * Hear noise * Open locks * Pick pockets * Read scrolls * Break Fall (1/2 damage on success)
MASTER THIEF - 9th Level
The chance for 'normal' abilities increases to 5 in 6. The Master Thief may now choose one new skill each level from the following (4 in 6 chance of success).
* Use magic item * Move in shadows * Ventriloquist * Climb underhang * Pass through trap * Reset trap
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 28, 2014 3:24:26 GMT -6
An interesting concept, but one where it may take some time to "educate" the players.
I remember a 2E campaign using the alternate PC system where you could use points to "build" a character and my wife was playing a wizard. She put points into healing spells (since her concept of a wizard is more like a witch or combo MU-Cleric anyway) and she seemed surprised later to discover that she lost something like three different spell schools in order to add healing. She's pretty smart and I thought that I had explained the options clearly to her, but it hadn't "soaked in" somehow as to how this magic user would be different from others she had played and the long-term impact of the trade-off that she had chosen.
I can see this happening to a thief. "What? I can;'t Move Silently? But thieves can always Move Silently."
|
|
luc
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 30
|
Post by luc on May 28, 2014 3:47:59 GMT -6
I was thinking about that when I mocked up that list. I could see giving thieves a 1 in 6 chance for thief skills that they don't 'know'.
You would then just have to ask the player "does your guy know X?". Yes - roll 4 or under, No - roll a 1.
|
|
|
Post by jakdethe on May 28, 2014 4:17:09 GMT -6
That's a pretty good idea. I know a lot of guys who play AD&D and give everyone the base chance for thieving skills (since they're so low). It'd be the same concept, as pretty much everyone has a 1 in 6 chance of doing stuff in OD&D; you're thief is just better at certain things, and has the ability to improve/learn new skills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 10:08:18 GMT -6
I'm quite taken with this idea of skill simplicity, as it would mean that the DM only really needs to know if a character has the ability or not. How about something like this? ---------- A Thief begins with 2 skills of their choice. Each level they may choose one new skill. The chance for success of any skill they know is 4 in 6. * Find / Remove traps * Detect secret doors * Hide in shadows * Move silently * Hear noise * Open locks * Pick pockets * Read scrolls * Break Fall (1/2 damage on success) MASTER THIEF - 9th Level The chance for 'normal' abilities increases to 5 in 6. The Master Thief may now choose one new skill each level from the following (4 in 6 chance of success). * Use magic item * Move in shadows * Ventriloquist * Climb underhang * Pass through trap * Reset trap I like this, better than any thief writeup I have seen. This I would allow IMC with perhaps a very minor tweak or two.
|
|
luc
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 30
|
Post by luc on May 29, 2014 5:39:35 GMT -6
What tweaks do you think you would do? Change some of the skills? Not give the extra chance boost at 9th level? (I figured it was a logical point to give some improvement)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 8:03:18 GMT -6
What tweaks do you think you would do? Change some of the skills? Not give the extra chance boost at 9th level? (I figured it was a logical point to give some improvement) Since we only play once per month I was thinking of doing an Int check at 4th, 8th & 12th level to see if they pick up a second skill at those levels.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 29, 2014 18:24:57 GMT -6
Neat idea, Luc. It's a bit like the system in Warlock, the 1975 OD&D variant which treated thief skills more like spells.
How about a Knife Throwing skill that allows the thief to throw a dagger into melee combat without chance (or reduced chance) of friendly fire? This would allow a thief to fight more without getting directly in combat. They still must be in range (perhaps only works at short range), and is limited by the number of daggers carried. NPCs could have the same ability...
* * * * *
Just for comparison/inspiration, here's the 1st level thief skill list from the Complete Warlock (1978): 1. Detect Evil 2. Detect Good 3. Detect Magic 4. Evaluate Treasure 5. Jimmy Portals 6. Pick Most Locks (2/3) 7. Dagger +2 8. Short Sword +2 9. Sling +2 10. Sure Strike, Dagger (x3) 11. Detect Noise (+1/6) 12. Hide in Shadows (50%) 13. Jam Portals 14. Move More Silently (+1/6) 15. Spot Hidden Items (+1/6) 16. Cheat At Game of Skill 17. Sleight of Hand (80%) 18. Pilfer from Backpacks/Saddlebags (50%) 19. Lie Convincingly 20. Map Deciphering 21. Read 1 Extra Language 22. Start Fires 23. Tie Up With Ropes
A 1st level thief gets one of these abilities, a 2nd level thief gets two, etc in a progression similar to spellcasting. Base chance for skills that are +1/6 is 1 in 6, so the +1/6 makes it 2 in 6.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 18, 2014 21:58:19 GMT -6
I found a 'hidden' rule in Blackmoor in the description of the monk class:
"Note however that extremely silent creatures will double surprise possibilities, i.e., halflings, thieves, bugbears and undead double possibilities".
This is a 4 in 6 chance for thieves or halflings to surprise other characters/monsters, which fits well with Luc's idea of 4 in 6 success. So this is another possible skill for thieves, although it should be perhaps just be viewed as the result of a successful Move Silently.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 18, 2014 22:44:17 GMT -6
I found a 'hidden' rule in Blackmoor in the description of the monk class: "Note however that extremely silent creatures will double surprise possibilities, i.e., halflings, thieves, bugbears and undead double possibilities". This is a 4 in 6 chance for thieves or halflings to surprise other characters/monsters, which fits well with Luc's idea of 4 in 6 success. So this is another possible skill for thieves, although it should be perhaps just be viewed as the result of a successful Move Silently. This is exactly how it's handled in Delving Deeper, for pretty much all the non-improving skills. Everyone gets 2 in 6 odds. Except those who are especially "good at" something; they get 4 in 6 odds instead.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 19, 2014 6:34:31 GMT -6
Would you consider removing levels altogether? Or perhaps using them as a sort of "previous experience" during character creation, the way Classic Traveller did it. You roll your character at the start of the game, add levels to taste, and for all intents and purposes your basic character never changes during play except for the stuff he picks up and the enemies he makes.
|
|