It's a crossbow. I just say zap when I use it. I don't handle anything. It uses the crossbow rules exactly.
Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
It's a crossbow. I just say zap when I use it. I don't handle anything. It uses the crossbow rules exactly.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
SO... are these your personal D&D stats, Morrus?
That's what reskinning means. It's still a crossbow. There's just a flavour change. Fluff, nothing more. Astonishingly trivial, yet it affects my immersion in a positive way.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
It sounds as if the a question that he's got in mind includes mundane things such as ammo - if you've got a crossbow and 20 quarrels, you can't carry on shooting once you've used them all up. What happens with a zap?
(clearly for games that don't track ammo it isn't an issue, equally for games that do track ammo it could be)
Cheers
Sammael
Adventurer
It sucked? I mean, there were the optional professions and NWPs, but they used the eldritch "roll under" mechanic and you got so few NWP points that NWPs were rarely useful.What about 2E AD&D?
But even those ultra-lame NWPs were better than what Monte & Co are proposing here.
I can live without the bajillion 3.5 skills (I use a reduced set of only 28 in my system, and that includes the combat skills, spellcasting skills, and skills that replace saves), but no skills at all = complete and utter dealbreaker for me.
Siberys
Adventurer
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - My problem, with that example at least, is the rules assumptions about that. I may not build a dextrous mage, but if I want to be good at "casting" a "basic spell", I have to be dextrous if I'm using the crossbow rules and want to be at all effective with them, even if flavor-wise it doesn't matter.
If attacks, damage, &c are decoupled from ability scores, reflavor away! It's just I'm afraid those little mechanical barriers I liked to see removed with the advent of at-wills in 4e will make a return. :|
Otherwise, I totally agree with you about reflavoring.
If attacks, damage, &c are decoupled from ability scores, reflavor away! It's just I'm afraid those little mechanical barriers I liked to see removed with the advent of at-wills in 4e will make a return. :|
Otherwise, I totally agree with you about reflavoring.
I used to be able to do backflips, but no more. I do have a good alcohol tolerance, though. I know little about Abba - or any music, really - but you can sub in Doctor Who there. Average on jars, but a bonus when shouting at people who commit social transgressions. I get the stubbornness and good looks, but a penalty on the dancing!
I still have a crossbow with 20 ammo. It's gone when it's used. As I said, it's a fluff change, not a mechanics change. Mechanics remain identical. I just say "zap" instead of "thwang".
JeffB
Legend
I came to the conclusion years ago that I wouldnt want to game with 99% of gamers based on their messageboard posts at least. Peeps get way too wound up about their make believe elves and fairy princessesI'm liking the basic idea of the skill system (sympathies for those that don't), but I think we're still lacking some key information.
Bonuses to skills aren't necessarily numerical bonuses, although they can be. If I've read the transcript correctly, for example, double-training Stealth let a character move their full speed while hiding. In fact, non-numerical bonuses are better than numerical ones when they permit you to do things without a roll that others would need a roll to do or couldn't attempt in the first place. This makes sense with the emphasis on whether one should even require a roll in the first place. That could be decided by the raw ability score, but it can also be decided by training. Rather like a more flexible version of skill tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel. Those sorts of value-added options could also keep the disparity in skill check bonuses between characters within a reasonable range. I'll be interested to see how high bonuses are allowed to go. The variance of the d20 is quite large, so trusting a bonus to reliably show competence vs. another character usually requires a fairly large bonus, and with it all heaps of trouble. That's a good reason to take skill training in a less numerically oriented direction.
In my homebrew game we name our own skills, each of which contains 3 basic proficiencies. (For example, my character has the "Rough History" skill which for him encompasses Begging, Urban Survival, and Weaponry plus anything else that makes sense with the backstory. He also has "Cleric of Bahamut", which covers First Aid, Leadership, and Theology and anything else relevant to that part of the character. It also means his knowledge of theology, for example, is limited to what a cleric of Bahamut would have reason to know). However, the main effect of training these skills is to allow for more reliable (if limited) success without greatly increasing one's maximum potential, while the main affect of larger ability scores is the opposite. (This is success-based dice pool system, so it comes directly from the math.) These skills apply to any check using any ability score that can be justified. When the connection is tenuous, the DM can choose to grant half the bonus. In our homebrew a creature of average human dexterity with 2 ranks of training is basically on par with someone with superhuman natural ability (ability scores 10 and 20 in D&D terms), but the trained character achieves the average result much more reliably. I think similar characteristics could be achieved in D&D Next by making skill training less about a +n bonus, and more about what training lets a person achieve apart from or in addition to a check.
Bonuses to skills aren't necessarily numerical bonuses, although they can be. If I've read the transcript correctly, for example, double-training Stealth let a character move their full speed while hiding. In fact, non-numerical bonuses are better than numerical ones when they permit you to do things without a roll that others would need a roll to do or couldn't attempt in the first place. This makes sense with the emphasis on whether one should even require a roll in the first place. That could be decided by the raw ability score, but it can also be decided by training. Rather like a more flexible version of skill tricks from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel. Those sorts of value-added options could also keep the disparity in skill check bonuses between characters within a reasonable range. I'll be interested to see how high bonuses are allowed to go. The variance of the d20 is quite large, so trusting a bonus to reliably show competence vs. another character usually requires a fairly large bonus, and with it all heaps of trouble. That's a good reason to take skill training in a less numerically oriented direction.
In my homebrew game we name our own skills, each of which contains 3 basic proficiencies. (For example, my character has the "Rough History" skill which for him encompasses Begging, Urban Survival, and Weaponry plus anything else that makes sense with the backstory. He also has "Cleric of Bahamut", which covers First Aid, Leadership, and Theology and anything else relevant to that part of the character. It also means his knowledge of theology, for example, is limited to what a cleric of Bahamut would have reason to know). However, the main effect of training these skills is to allow for more reliable (if limited) success without greatly increasing one's maximum potential, while the main affect of larger ability scores is the opposite. (This is success-based dice pool system, so it comes directly from the math.) These skills apply to any check using any ability score that can be justified. When the connection is tenuous, the DM can choose to grant half the bonus. In our homebrew a creature of average human dexterity with 2 ranks of training is basically on par with someone with superhuman natural ability (ability scores 10 and 20 in D&D terms), but the trained character achieves the average result much more reliably. I think similar characteristics could be achieved in D&D Next by making skill training less about a +n bonus, and more about what training lets a person achieve apart from or in addition to a check.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
