Help - Essential Skills Collection

[Nellisir]

There would also have to be some really good role-playing to intimidate anyone.

Yeah, I mean, I wasn't a complete pain (at least, not that I recall). The player was my cousin (and might have been living with me part of the time), and he had a tendency to try and creep in little extra stuff for his character. If he role-played an intimidation, I'd let it play out. It was when he said things like "I'm going to roll to intimidate him and get him to move" that I said no. There were other characters in the game who were built around charisma skills; he didn't get to have his schtick and theirs too.

Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat? I think Hero system bases Stun on more than just Constitution (Where is my book?) - or is that Body? Couldn't some Performance skills be based on Charisma and Dexterity?
I know there are feats in the d20 system that allow a different stat bonus to be used for some things. But there need to be limits. I don't envy you, when you have to deal with such things.

I'm a specialist. I've played D&D, and nothing but D&D, for...crap, about 25 years. I haven't seen a good way of doing it within D&D. Other games might be able to.

It's all a trade-off. I try to be clear, fair, and not a jerk about what I allow and don't allow.

 

[Derren]

I can understand not wanting to let such a player abuse the rules and go with such a low Charisma, but I also don't think it's realistic not to allow strength to intimidate at all. Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?

DSA has a system where every skill is linked to 3 stats (sometimes the same stat multiple times). But that system also has rather uncommon stats instead of the D&D Str, Dex, etc. For example courage is a stat.

 

[Jhaelen]

Has no system tried including skills that are based on more than one stat?

Well, in the most popular German rpg 'Das Schwarze Auge' (The Dark Eye), you roll three d20 for every skill check, each of them being associated with one of (up to*) three stats that are important for the skill. If any of the three ability checks fails, you can turn them into a success by 'spending' points from your skill. You achieve a basic success if you retain 0 skill points and higher degree successes if more skill points are left over.

*: A few skills duplicate a stat for their checks.

(Made up) example: You have 5 skill points in the Climb skill (based on Str, Dex, and Con). Your ability scores are Str 15, Dex 10, and Con 13. You then roll an 8 for your Str check, a 14 for your Dex check, and a 10 for your Con check. This means you have to use 4 skill points to turn your Dex roll into a success, while the other two were immediately successful, leaving you with a success and 1 skill point left over, i.e. slightly better than a basic success.

The system makes sure that dump stats are very painful indeed, since there's always a couple of skills that are important for your profession where your dump stat plays a role. It's generally more beneficial to have a character with balanced stats, especially since it gets more expensive to improve skills that are already high.

 

[Nellisir]

I could see that being slow in play, but I like it anyways.

 

[GMMichael]

Well, if a stab-in-the-back thief takes (generalized) Fight skill, is he suddenly an expert in everything fighter-ish? If so, then I'd call that fair. If not, then why not, and whatever you did to Fight you could do to Sneak. And Cast Spell, presumably. Maybe 1 "point" into Sneak gets you a +1 in everything, or a +3 in a sub-skill of your choice.

That's pretty much the case. Which is why I can't give more skills to one "class" than another; pretty much everything is a skill, and they're not class-restricted.

Now I'm wondering: should a fighter have to spend skill points on three different skills (Fight/Unarmed, Melee, and Missile) to be a fighting master, while a wizard needs only one skill: Cast Spell? Cast Spell was a catch-all, and each different spell was a skill. But then I realized that would make wizards really good at only a couple of spells.

Maybe that's not so bad. A fighter has a favorite weapon, right? And a fighter can be disarmed, but under the core rules, a wizard can never lose his ability to cast a spell (no spell components, or disrupting). However, a wizard WILL have a casting limit - by spending what amounts to spell points. So the fighter loses combat power by losing his weapon, and the wizard loses it by casting too often.

What works better: Cast (a) Spell, or Cast (all) Spells?

 

[Nellisir]

That's pretty much the case. Which is why I can't give more skills to one "class" than another; pretty much everything is a skill, and they're not class-restricted.

Now I'm wondering: should a fighter have to spend skill points on three different skills (Fight/Unarmed, Melee, and Missile) to be a fighting master, while a wizard needs only one skill: Cast Spell? Cast Spell was a catch-all, and each different spell was a skill. But then I realized that would make wizards really good at only a couple of spells.

Maybe that's not so bad. A fighter has a favorite weapon, right? And a fighter can be disarmed, but under the core rules, a wizard can never lose his ability to cast a spell (no spell components, or disrupting). However, a wizard WILL have a casting limit - by spending what amounts to spell points. So the fighter loses combat power by losing his weapon, and the wizard loses it by casting too often.

What works better: Cast (a) Spell, or Cast (all) Spells?

Cast All, unless you want to make it Cast (Wizard), Cast (Cleric) to match Fight (Melee), Fight (Ranged). Breaking out unarmed doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Fists (or studded gauntlets) are just another melee weapon.

 

[GMMichael]

Soooo...I just noticed this. Skyrim, D&D 3, WoD, have something in common: 6-8 different skills per ability score. Is that it? Is that the magic number that makes skills worth investing in? If so, I feel pretty good about 21 skills for my 3-ability system.

Nellisir: I'm going to draw out a spreadsheet with occupations and level advancements for min/maxed and well-balanced characters. I'll be looking at the wizard's spell diversity and spell success to help me decide on Cast Spell or Cast Spells.
(If it helps the discussion - P&P wizards make a Cast Spell check when they cast a spell. This check is the objective or DC for those defending against the spell's effects. Note that the wizard uses his Metaphysical ability to cast spells, but the damage manifests against either Physical or Mental abilities and skills. The defenders, if they fail to avoid, can then absorb some spell damage with physical or mental armor.)

Fight/Unarmed refers to the myriad "martial arts" that are taught - the ones without weapons. Fighting with a weapon is different because you get range, much more muscle fatigue per attack, and the ability to do more damage. Think of it like this: the guy with a knife in a fistfight is going to win. Much like the guy with a gun in a knife fight is going to win. (Thanks, Indy.)

 

[PrometheanVigil]

Crafting, Investigation, Politicking, Fighting, Exploration, Stealth, Leadership, Tactics.

All of these are necessary categories for an RPG that accommodates for all kinds of players.

But the ones I consider most necessary?

Melee
Science
Persuasion
Stealth
Survival

You've got your fighting, you've got your crafting, you've got your politics, you've got your sneaking and you've got your dodging traps.

I like that.

 

[GMMichael]

PromVig: I think the 21-point list has these skills covered. Investigation could be Detect and Persuade, Exploration is Detect and Movement, Leadership is Persuade, Tactics is Movement and Fight. Knowledge-Scholarship (you mention Science) is a skill with Michaelangelo in mind: the lack of specialized knowledge in olden days meant you could be an expert in everything, if you were smart enough.

I think I can answer the Cast question from the perspective of multi-classing, which I came close to doing earlier.

A fighter-type has lots of points in Fight-Melee and Parry. If he spends two in Cast Spell upon gaining a new level, he can now cast any number of low-level spells. What seems more appropriate: he spends two in Cast Spell, and can cast one new spell at a novice level.

A wizard-type has lots of points in Cast Spell (fireball) and Concentration (for regenerating MP points). If he spends two in Fight-Melee upon gaining a new level, he gains the ability to use any close-quarters weapon at a 2nd level ability. This probably puts him a few levels below Gandalf in using that longsword he's been lugging around, but he'll probably prefer to spend those points in Cast Spell (fireball) so that he gets better at hitting distant and spread-out targets.

I think the fighter has way more to gain from taking Cast All than from taking Cast One.

If true, the problem becomes the wizard's: he can only cast one or two spells at the very peak of his casting ability. Further, his best spells will be the easy ones he learned early on, and on which was therefore able to spend the most points. Part of my solution is the spellbook perk: cast any spell you don't know as if you knew the spell, but without a skill bonus. This is great for wizards who can put lots of spells in that spellbook without wasting skill points, but can only cast them at marginal ability. The fighter (who hasn't taken much Metaphys or many wizard perks) can take the Spellbook perk too, which is the same as Cast All, except he won't be getting any bonuses to his spellcasting. And the caster-damage feature of spells will also prevent a lot of casting from the fighter: casters take Metaphysical damage when casting spells, which is an ability that the fighter won't have in large quantity.

But I digress...how does the caster cast new, high-powered spells at high level ability? I'm thinking about a perk: Spell Upgrade. Take a simpler spell you know, and put those skill points in a related higher-level spell. The higher level spell still uses more Metaphysical (spell) points, so he won't be casting a lot of it, but by sacrificing a perk (at level-up), he'll be able to hit hard targets with it. And the pre-upgrade spell is lost, unless he has a 0-point version of it in his spellbook.

Discuss?

 

[Nellisir]

Fight/Unarmed refers to the myriad "martial arts" that are taught - the ones without weapons. Fighting with a weapon is different because you get range, much more muscle fatigue per attack, and the ability to do more damage. Think of it like this: the guy with a knife in a fistfight is going to win. Much like the guy with a gun in a knife fight is going to win. (Thanks, Indy.)

I get that, it's just more simulationist than I play. It also adds another choice to the list. (Also, from your description it's a sub-optimal choice, so you'd have to make it worthwhile...which would seem to mean equivalent to conventional melee. And if you do that, what's the difference between an unarmed style and a weapon, particularly when you're abstracting combat skills?)