Nonweapon Proficiencies - good or bad? House rules?

[hamurai]

I've been reading through my beloved AD&D 2e PHB again. The book that had changed my youth, brought my friends together and got us many hours of fun. I have so many good memories attached to this, it's a wonder I don't pick it up more often.

But when I came to the Proficiencies chapter (5), something instantly stirred inside of me. There it was again, the feeling that this section didn't help my game along at all, as written. To be more precise, I'm talking about the Nonweapon Proficiences (not the Weapon Proficiencies, not the Secondary Skills rules).
Our DM back in the day was a big fan of these rules, for some reason, but I could never really understand what these rules were actually meant for.

(1) For example, let's say I play a dwarf fighter (INT 9, WIS 9), I start with 3 Nonweapon Proficiences (NWP from now on) for the sake of being dwarf-y I want to take the Mining NWP. This costs me 2 points and with a Check Modifier of -3, I must roll 6 or less on 1d20 to be successful. Wait, what? That's a 30% success chance for a hard-to-learn skill, which has always struck me as useless for that point price. Spending my last NWP point I can raise it to 35% (+1 bonus), but I still feel like I'm a bad miner and the skill won't get a lot of use.
OK, I get it, the skill may be potentially useful in caverns and such surroundings, and yes, I'm an adventurer and not a completely trained miner, and also as a dwarf I get special skills anyway. I coud live with that, but:

(2) Charioteering is a 1-point NWp and gets a +2 Check Modifier to DEX. My understanding of these numbers is, it's easy to learn and easy to do. Now, I've never had the chance to try driving a chariot, but I'd expect it to be difficult. Way more dificult than:

(3) Running. 1-point NWP with a -6 Check Modifier on CON. OK, now I'm lost. Why is this skill so unbelievably hard to use? I could understand this modifier imposed by my DM when I say my character runs a marathon, but as a standard modifier?

(4) What happens when I don't have the skill? Automatic failure? So when I don't have the Gaming skill I can't win at a dice game requiring luck? When I don't have the Rope Use skill I have no chance to tie a good knot?


These things have always bothered me in my youth and were the reason for my deep dislike of the "skill" system of AD&D 2e.

When we had played without NWP, we made skill checks as roll-below attributes. Then, with NWP, we spend skill points and are often worse at the skill than before and don't know about (4) above.


Our house rule back then was that the NWP Check Modifier was used only for unskilled use and that each NWP point ("slot") spent in a skill we'd get a +3 bonus to the attribute we rolled on.


What do you think about the NWPs in AD&D? Did you use them? Did you house rule them? - I'd like to run a game of AD&D again soon-ish, and as I know my players they'd like a skill system.

[Deleted]

Dec 13, 2020 23:29:12 GMT -6 hamurai said:

(4) What happens when I don't have the skill? Automatic failure? So when I don't have the Gaming skill I can't win at a dice game requiring luck? When I don't have the Rope Use skill I have no chance to tie a good knot?


These things have always bothered me in my youth and were the reason for my deep dislike of the "skill" system of AD&D 2e.

When we had played without NWP, we made skill checks as roll-below attributes. Then, with NWP, we spend skill points and are often worse at the skill than before and don't know about (4) above.


Our house rule back then was that the NWP Check Modifier was used only for unskilled use and that each NWP point ("slot") spent in a skill we'd get a +3 bonus to the attribute we rolled on.


What do you think about the NWPs in AD&D? Did you use them? Did you house rule them? - I'd like to run a game of AD&D again soon-ish, and as I know my players they'd like a skill system.

Without gambling the odds just are normal. Without rope use you can tie a knot, there's just a greater chance of failure.

We use NWPs without a lot of house rules ('cept for specific proficiencies). Oh, and everyone gets swimming for free. I believe somewhere BtB (tho I might have lost track of edition) those without the prof, in the case of a check, check at half the stat.

That said, I think they need a bonus that includes level. Perhaps along the line of +1 for every 3 levels in a class skill, +1 for 4 levels in a non-class skill. That way higher-level PCs can be more heroic. Proficiency slots are so rare with so little return on improving them.

[hamurai]

First, welcome to the board!
Thanks for your reply.

Dec 14, 2020 1:03:03 GMT -6 @ricks said:

Without gambling the odds just are normal. Without rope use you can tie a knot, there's just a greater chance of failure.

Strictly by-the-book, this is a house rule already, isn't it? For example in the description of the Gaming skill it says, you know how to play. If you want to bend the odds (cheat), there's a chance you get caught, but this doesn't improve your success chance, oddly enough.

Dec 14, 2020 1:03:03 GMT -6 @ricks said:

That said, I think they need a bonus that includes level. Perhaps along the line of +1 for every 3 levels in a class skill, +1 for 4 levels in a non-class skill. That way higher-level PCs can be more heroic. Proficiency slots are so rare with so little return on improving them.

I agree, there should be some rule to allow automatic NWP growth, not just by adding more points.

[Falconer]

My first DM (c. 1997) used NWPs. They seemed de facto non-optional in those days, especially if you were using kits (which we did). I think it added some fun to character creation, because they lent the illusion of greater customizability. But yeah, in play they were very annoying as they tended to bog down play with a lot of useless fire-drill rolls, which led to more useless rolls due to failed rolls. When I started my own campaign in 2001, I used them at first because I didn’t know any other way, but I very quickly ditched them. Because of course you can swim, read, start a fire, throw a rope, etc. Let’s get on to the fun stuff!

It took me many years to come to peace with skill-based systems, and even now when I run a game with skills, I tread carefully. I use them for niche protection (the character with x skill is our go-to person for using that skill), which is essential for spreading the fun, especially in a large group; but skill checks I try to reserve for when they want to pull off something improbable or impossible. Or something that might have very interesting or hilarious ramifications upon failure.

But yeah, in a game that also has well-delineated classes (AND secondary skills) to define niche protection, a full-blown skill system (NWPs) is a lot of useless weight.

[jeffb]

I hate to keep harping on 13th Age, but this by far has been the best "skill" system I have used in my life, and I have adopted it to O/TSR D&D and C&C (changing math as needed). This requires some good roleplay/description, common sense, and rulings. Nothing crunchy.

Backgrounds & Skill Checks
Backgrounds represent pieces of your character’s history that contributes to your character’s history as well as their ability to succeed with non-combat skills.

Each character has a number of points to allocate to a set of backgrounds. These are broad categories of experience (cat burglar, for example) rather than specific implementations of that experience (climbing and hiding).

Backgrounds don’t sync to a specific ability score, though some backgrounds obviously may get used more often with certain ability scores than others.

Choosing Your Backgrounds
Choose backgrounds that help you make sense of your characters past, jobs, and settings. Background and skill use is meant to be about fun in-character methods of attempting to advance the plot.

A few possible backgrounds include: acrobat, alchemist, animal trainer, architect, aristocratic noble, assassin, chef, con-woman, goblin exterminator, hunted outlaw, knight errant, magecraft, priest, refugee, scout, shepherd, soldier, spy, temple acolyte, thief, torturer, transformed animal, traveling martial arts pupil, tribal healer, tunnel scout, wandering minstrel, warrior poet, and so on.

Assigning Background Points
Each character gets 8 background points, plus any extra that your class’s talents award. Assign your background points to as many backgrounds as you want, up to your total points. You can assign a maximum of 5 points to a single background (and minimum of 1).

Making Skill Checks
When you roll a skill check to find out if you succeed at a task or trick, the GM tells you which ability score is being tested. Then you choose the background you think is relevant to gain the points you have in that background as a bonus to the skill check.

Most skill checks require you to equal or beat a Difficulty Class (DC), set by the environment you are operating in, to succeed.

To make a skill check, use this formula:

D20 + relevant ability modifier + level + relevant background points

Vs.

DC set by the environment

You can’t apply multiple backgrounds to the same check; the background with the highest (or tied for highest) bonus applies.

[hamurai]

That's closer to the "Secondary Skills" skill system in AD&D, where you roll, sort of, for a profession, and get a wider field of expertise. That's actually what I'm considering for the new game at the moment.

[jeffb]

Dec 14, 2020 14:20:46 GMT -6 hamurai said:

That's closer to the "Secondary Skills" skill system in AD&D, where you roll, sort of, for a profession, and get a wider field of expertise. That's actually what I'm considering for the new game at the moment.

13th Age system can do that, and a whole lot more. I tend to use them as a "prestige class" for whatever setting ..i.e. Rangers of the North, Reavers of the Black Coast, Red Wizards of Thay, etc.

[hamurai]

Ah, I see. Interesting idea!

[tkdco2]

I liked the nonweapon proficiencies. I thought they were a nice way to flesh out my characters, and my group sometimes made use of them. The most commonly used skills were riding and hunting, but blind-fighting and rope use occasionally came in handy as well.

[Deleted]

I like NWPs, but find it's good to make a distinction between real NWPs (like fishing), and WPs disguised as NWPs (blind fighting, iajitsu). The (N)WPs should be relegated to requiring WP slots.

[tkdco2]

I classify martial arts or any unarmed combat maneuvers as weapon proficiencies, so I agree with classifying blind-fighting and iaijutsu as weapon proficiencies as well.

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2020 1:14:12 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Dec 14, 2020 1:03:03 GMT -6 @ricks said:

That said, I think they need a bonus that includes level. Perhaps along the line of +1 for every 3 levels in a class skill, +1 for 4 levels in a non-class skill. That way higher-level PCs can be more heroic. Proficiency slots are so rare with so little return on improving them.

I agree, there should be some rule to allow automatic NWP growth, not just by adding more points.

I think the Dragon Magazine article from #225 has the right of it, adding 1 point / level to a proficiency of your choice. That involves a few changes to the system. And then i've made more changes to the system, and end up here: 


Based primarily on the Dragon Magazine #225 system. It's similar to OA with different checks.

Number of proficiency slots per class + Intelligence bonus.

Multi-class characters start with the amount from both classes, and earn new proficiencies at the rate of the fastest class.

Proficiency provides a 10 target number (modified by specific proficiency, ability score, and difficulty)

Attempts can be made against a non-proficient score, with base 0.

Roll d20 <= a modified target number.

Always fail on a 20, Success on a 1 is not guaranteed.

When there are opposed checks, use the delta of success to determine success.



Spending enough to buy the proficiency again improves the base to 13.

Each level the PC gets 1 additional point to improve one proficiency.



Buying a non-class proficiency costs 1 more slot. Class ability is a combination of DRMG 225 and 2e, leaning towards permissive

F Fighter Paladins are also Clerics, Rangers are also Magic Users, Barbarians are also Thieves

M Magic User

C Cleric Druids are also Fighters

T Thief

B Bard

K Monk Monks are also Thieves



Ability score modifier

12 +1

13 +1

14 +1

15 +2

16 +2

17 +3

18 +3

Non-Fighters have a -1 penalty on STRENGTH proficiencies, and a +2 max modifier on CONSTITUTION proficiencies.



Modifier to Target number

Very easy +15

Easy +10

Average +5

Hard 0

Very hard +5

Nearly impossible +15

[Desparil]

Dec 13, 2020 23:29:12 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I've been reading through my beloved AD&D 2e PHB again. The book that had changed my youth, brought my friends together and got us many hours of fun. I have so many good memories attached to this, it's a wonder I don't pick it up more often.

But when I came to the Proficiencies chapter (5), something instantly stirred inside of me. There it was again, the feeling that this section didn't help my game along at all, as written. To be more precise, I'm talking about the Nonweapon Proficiences (not the Weapon Proficiencies, not the Secondary Skills rules).
Our DM back in the day was a big fan of these rules, for some reason, but I could never really understand what these rules were actually meant for.

(1) For example, let's say I play a dwarf fighter (INT 9, WIS 9), I start with 3 Nonweapon Proficiences (NWP from now on) for the sake of being dwarf-y I want to take the Mining NWP. This costs me 2 points and with a Check Modifier of -3, I must roll 6 or less on 1d20 to be successful. Wait, what? That's a 30% success chance for a hard-to-learn skill, which has always struck me as useless for that point price. Spending my last NWP point I can raise it to 35% (+1 bonus), but I still feel like I'm a bad miner and the skill won't get a lot of use.
OK, I get it, the skill may be potentially useful in caverns and such surroundings, and yes, I'm an adventurer and not a completely trained miner, and also as a dwarf I get special skills anyway. I coud live with that, but:

(2) Charioteering is a 1-point NWp and gets a +2 Check Modifier to DEX. My understanding of these numbers is, it's easy to learn and easy to do. Now, I've never had the chance to try driving a chariot, but I'd expect it to be difficult. Way more dificult than:

(3) Running. 1-point NWP with a -6 Check Modifier on CON. OK, now I'm lost. Why is this skill so unbelievably hard to use? I could understand this modifier imposed by my DM when I say my character runs a marathon, but as a standard modifier?

(4) What happens when I don't have the skill? Automatic failure? So when I don't have the Gaming skill I can't win at a dice game requiring luck? When I don't have the Rope Use skill I have no chance to tie a good knot?


These things have always bothered me in my youth and were the reason for my deep dislike of the "skill" system of AD&D 2e.

When we had played without NWP, we made skill checks as roll-below attributes. Then, with NWP, we spend skill points and are often worse at the skill than before and don't know about (4) above.


Our house rule back then was that the NWP Check Modifier was used only for unskilled use and that each NWP point ("slot") spent in a skill we'd get a +3 bonus to the attribute we rolled on.


What do you think about the NWPs in AD&D? Did you use them? Did you house rule them? - I'd like to run a game of AD&D again soon-ish, and as I know my players they'd like a skill system.

I think a lot of this comes down to poor understanding of the system by DMs. An extremely important sentence reads as follows:

"When a character uses a proficiency, either the attempt is automatically successful, or the character must roll a proficiency check. If the task is simple or the proficiency has only limited game use (such as cobbling or carpentry), a proficiency check is generally not required. If the task the character is trying to perform is difficult or subject to failure, a proficiency check is required. Read the descriptions of the proficiencies for details about how and when each can be used."

So in many cases, that Mining proficiency should simply provide information without needing to make that 30% roll. If you look at the specific description of the Running proficiency, it also explicates why the penalty to the check is so severe - "After the first day's movement, the character must roll a proficiency check for success. If the die roll succeeds, the character can continue his running movement the next day." You suggest that a -6 modifier might be appropriate for running a marathon, but the rules actually allow you to run two marathons back-to-back without rolling at all.

As for trying to perform a task without proficiency, I'm not sure if it was ever printed in any official source, but the common rule that I remember everyone using at the time was that you cut your relevant ability score in half if you weren't proficient.

As for advancement, I do agree that 1 NWP slot for a +1 bonus was far to miserly. I found the Skills & Powers method far superior, wherein you received between 3 and 5 CP per level and increasing your aptitude in a NWP came at a rate of 1 CP per +1 improvement.

[hamurai]

I guess I have to dig up Skills & Powers, that sounds like an interesting modification.

[tkdco2]

I'm okay with the nonweapon proficiencies as written in the PHB. I may make a few changes, but I otherwise will keep them as they are.

I was never a fan of the Player's Option series, so I avoided them. I have limited experience with the Skills & Powers way of doing NWPs, but those rules seem fine.