Help - Essential Skills Collection

[Randalthor]

My core skills for any (ANY!) adventuring character in any (ANY!) genre, not in any particular order:

Perception/Awareness*
Athletic/Movement
Combat
Interaction/Social
Survival
Lore/Knowledge

Pretty-much everything else is fine-tuning and/or setting/genre specific (like computer skills, or Gnarlac Training).


*This one is key, and one I see slighted by many systems and many players. Not having an awareness of one's surroundings, especially with all the dangerous situations PCs always find themselves in, is just ensuring a quick death. (And more time taken creating a new character.)

 

[GMMichael]

Nellisir: there IS the generic Fight skill option, which is the same as Base Attack Bonus in D&D. Archers in the three-way system will be wishing they had the generic Fight when they run out of arrows, right? That makes taking Fight-Missile a trade-off: you can attack your enemy from further away, and have time to hide or run away before he engages you. But you'll run out of arrows eventually. I took a cue from Skyrim on this judgement call, which has One-Handed, Two-Handed, and Archery skills.

Fight-Unarmed has some advantages over Fight-Melee: no need to buy weapons, never look like a threat, no chance to get disarmed (unless there's a dragon involved...).

Randalthor: P&P has specialized those skills a bit, but otherwise agrees with you. Two questions:
1) Do you think Combat, unlike in D&D, should be broken into sub-skills?
2) If you could design your own system, how would you ideally handle Perception?

 

[Mrdrasco]

Interesting discusion, have you checked out Savage Worlds. The basic skill list is good, although can be considered simple in some things. And the Knowledge skills broad in most aspects, a player we have took chemistry and Aracna in a victorian steam punk world. He's crafted knock out druggs and dynamite when he had time.

 

[Ferghis]

I'm still reading through the thread, but I wanted to post my draft of a potential skill mechanic. I'm stealing from a lot of places, in particular Cook's suggestion of dividing up skills into levels of expertise to make many checks unnecessary or impossible. I also incorporated the yes/no and/but mechanic that I've seen floating around in many places.

Skills begin as untrained, and may progress to (in order) trained, expert, master, or epic training levels. At any particular level of training, a character will automatically succeed at any check below his or her level of training, and roll to make a check at his or her level of training. The character can also attempt a check at the next level of training, but with a disadvantage. A character will automatically fail a check at a training level that is two levels or more above his or her current training level. For example, an expert acrobat will automatically succeed any untrained or trained acrobatics check, and may roll for any expert or master acrobatics check (the latter at a disadvantage), but will automatically fail any epic acrobatics check.

Characters who have developed their training in a skill also have access to certain abilities which untrained characters cannot even attempt to do with a check. For example, a master acrobat can avoid being knocked prone.

When the DM calls for a skill check, players may suggest appropriate ability score bonuses to add to the roll. For example, to jump from one tree to another, one player might suggest adding the dexterity bonus while another might suggest adding strength bonus. The DM is the final arbiter of what bonuses apply to a given roll, and may allow multiple ability scores or none. If the check is opposed by another individual, that individual’s training determines the check level, and the the opposing individual’s modifier is applied as a penalty to the roll.

The success or failure of a check is determined as follows:
Natural 1 or modified <1: Failure. Optionally, additional negative consequences may apply.
Modified 1-5: Failure
Modified 6-10: Failure. Optionally, minor positive achievements may apply.
Modified 11-15: Success. Optionally, minor negative consequences may apply.
Modified 16-20: Success.
Natural 20 or modified >20: Success. Optionally, additional positive achievements may apply

 

[Ferghis]

My core skills for any (ANY!) adventuring character in any (ANY!) genre, not in any particular order:

Perception/Awareness*
Athletic/Movement
Combat
Interaction/Social
Survival
Lore/Knowledge

Pretty-much everything else is fine-tuning and/or setting/genre specific (like computer skills, or Gnarlac Training).


*This one is key, and one I see slighted by many systems and many players. Not having an awareness of one's surroundings, especially with all the dangerous situations PCs always find themselves in, is just ensuring a quick death. (And more time taken creating a new character.)

Two points, neither of which are necessarily addressed at Randalthor. First, I see a big distinction between skills that require years of training to improve (such as knowledge or professional skills) and the short list of practical skills that most fantasy adventurers bring to bear, such as most of the ones in the quoted list. I have little interest in detailing the former: leave that up to the player. I can see disallowing subdividing knowledge skills too much, but crafts? Who am I to say that a silversmith has the same skills as a guy who mainly makes horseshoes?

As an aside, I'm not sure where stealth/sneak/hide would fit on that list, but that's another essential one, and the counterpart to awareness/perception/search.

Second, I prefer combat be handled separately than non-combat skills. It's a personal preference, but it's a pretty common choice, and for good reason. Failing a knowledge check will rarely get you killed, whiles failing a combat check will often get you killed. With that much at stake, it needs some extra attention. Stealth and awareness straddle this dividing line, and cause me great frustration just for that reason.

Unfinished post - had to go...

 

[Randalthor]

Randalthor: P&P has specialized those skills a bit, but otherwise agrees with you. Two questions:

I am assuming "P&P" means Powers & Perils - I haven't looked into that game.

1) Do you think Combat, unlike in D&D, should be broken into sub-skills?

You know, I bounce back and forth on that. When Dark Heresy first came out with it's Weapon Skill (Melee) and Ballistic Skill (Missile) as basic attributes I felt a bit wonky, but I got over it - mostly. I still tend to prefer these to be skills, modified by natural attributes, and needing to be trained to increase.

2) If you could design your own system, how would you ideally handle Perception?

Ultimately, I feel perception is a trained skill, though like all skills it is backed by natural ability (attribute mods). Just like every incarnation of Sherlock Holmes has said, it takes years of dedicated study and training to be able to see the truth in what's around us. (Paraphrasing, of course.)

As Fergis mentioned, I missed a pretty important skill: stealth. Just like being able to accurately see what is around you is important for adventurers (in some ways I find it more important than combat skills - if you don't notice your enemy, how can you attack them or keep them from hitting you?), the ability to keep from being noticed is almost equally important.

As a counter-point to Mr. Fergis's post though, I do believe that perception and athletics/movement skills need to be trained, otherwise all you would have to do to get on the Olypic Track & Field and/or Gymnastics Teams would be to get in shape. Having been on the gymnastics team and swimming team in high school (not good enough to letter though, drat it) I can tell you it takes a lot of training to get good at the skills needed to even compete, not to mention win. I can understand the desire to want to keep things simple and not deal with each and every skill and ability a character can possess, but for those skills that can be critical to survival I feel they need to be.

 

[GMMichael]

Ferghis -
The skill system I'm working on seems to have the same effect as what you described above.
Here's the link: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/skills
I've introduced the Too Easy mechanic: if an action is too easy for a character, he automatically succeeds. It's reinforced by the GM's difficulty roll: the GM chooses the difficulty of what a character is trying to do, and adds that to his d20 roll. The player has to beat this roll. Either the player or the GM can choose to take a result of 10, speeding up an automatic success.

Where you've named the skill levels, I have a more continuous progression (using skill points):
Untrained - 0 skill points
Trained - 1 skill point
Expert - 2 to 5 skill points
Master - 6 to 10 skill points
Epic - 11+ skill points
The "disadvantage" at making a higher level skill check is included in the Difficulty (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/rolls); the higher the difficulty, the higher you have to roll.
And when you attempt something that's too difficult for you, you'll have to roll a number higher than what's on your die.
For example, you're Trained in Deciphering. You have a +1 from your skill point, and a +2 from your intelligence. You can roll a maximum of 23 on a d20. But you're attempting a Master skill level, at +10. In my system, the GM can take 10 for a Difficulty Class of 20, or try to roll for a higher DC. If the GM takes 10, the player needs to roll 18, 19, or 20 on his roll (15% odds). If the GM rolls, the player needs to roll 8 higher than the GM (since he has +3, adding 8 will equal 11, or one greater than the GM's +10). The player has 50/50 chances of rolling higher than the DM. Odds of rolling 8 higher, though, also work out to about 15%.

Should skills reflect what you need experience for, as well as what you must study for? Well, it sure beats role-playing those lengthy exams.

Should life-or-death skills follow the same system (like attacking)? Well, why can't anything be life-or-death? You're about to get smashed by a giant, unless you can Jump-Skill your way across a chasm. You're a hostage in a brutal kingdom - better hope your Smithing is up to snuff (when they demand you work for them). Why can't attacking (I call it Fight) be less-than-lethal? Fencing with the prince? Use Attack for a snowball fight. You could use Attack for a game of billiards, curling, or bowling too.

My current system is dividing stealth into two skills: Sneaking and Larceny. I find that it helps to look at a skill from a class-perspective: would different classes be interested in different parts of this skill? In Thievery's case, I say yes. Divide it up.

Regarding the Olympic Track and Field team: I wouldn't call that trained and untrained. Being in shape means you have a good strength score, not that you have Athletics training. Plus, the dude who's in good shape (but doesn't have any skill points) still has a 5% chance to jump over the 12' high-jump bar. 1 in 20. Even though the trained people have better odds.

But think about this: it's those cheesy '80s movies where the main-character jumps over a wall (trying to save his girlfriend), lands in a 100 meter dash, and beats the competition. He rolled well. Or used what I call a Hero Point. Either way, it's better for the story for him to win, than to be the boring, untrained guy.

 

[Ferghis]

As a counter-point to Mr. Fergis's post though, I do believe that perception and athletics/movement skills need to be trained, otherwise all you would have to do to get on the Olypic Track & Field and/or Gymnastics Teams would be to get in shape. Having been on the gymnastics team and swimming team in high school (not good enough to letter though, drat it) I can tell you it takes a lot of training to get good at the skills needed to even compete, not to mention win. I can understand the desire to want to keep things simple and not deal with each and every skill and ability a character can possess, but for those skills that can be critical to survival I feel they need to be.

I may have misexpressed myself. I agree that things like perception and athletics should improve with training.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think professional and knowledge skills should occupy the exact same game design space as those skills that can be trained while engaged as a full-time adventurer. Training those skills should take extensive time outside adventuring and appropriate resources, such as a highly trained mentor or an incredible library of rare books.

 

[Randalthor]

I may have misexpressed myself. I agree that things like perception and athletics should improve with training.

What I was trying to say is that I don't think professional and knowledge skills should occupy the exact same game design space as those skills that can be trained while engaged as a full-time adventurer. Training those skills should take extensive time outside adventuring and appropriate resources, such as a highly trained mentor or an incredible library of rare books.

Oh, I get it now. *Slaps forehead.* All you fancy, smancy talkers.

I agree that there are many skills that need "outside of the adventure" training in order to increase, and I think that most "adventuring" skills would increase faster/better with that type of training, as well. Basically, I think that the best way to improve any skill/ability is through the combination of use and training, both help reinforce each other and plug the holes (so to speak) in the other "method."

 

[Ferghis]

In a system where combat is independent of skills, and working within the framework I posted above (and within a game that might resemble D&D next), here's what I have put together so far. Professional skills are handled separately. Perception and Stealth training are difficult to gain access to. Characters who have developed their training in a skill also have access to certain abilities which characters of lesser (or no) training cannot even attempt to do with a check.

•Athletics (Str or Dex)
•Deceit (bluff and pickpocket) (Dex or Cha)
•Social (Cha or Str) (replaces Diplomacy and Intimidate)
•Healing (Int)
•Insight (Wis)
•Mechanic (Int or Dex) for traps and locks
•Lore: Dungeoneering, Wilderness, Geohistory, Arcana, Spirit (Int)
•Perception (Wis) - cannot be trained by a trait (must be trained via class, background, race or feat).
•Stealth (Dex) - cannot be trained by a trait (must be trained via class, background, race or feat).