So...wut's the deal with NWP?

[Orius]

NWP's were better than nothing, but they were a lousy way of having a skill system. Especially when some skills fell under the rubric of "Thief Skills" and thus some classes got automatically on top of NWP's and would quickly go up in level.

The Players Option series (i.e. 2.5 edition) made it a point-based mechanic that let you select more NWP's and made it easier to improve them, but it was still kludgy at best.

Later 2e products started introducing some NWP's that worked more like feats, giving special combat abilities or things outside the normal range of NWP's, like rudimentary metamagic, but they were from some obscure products. (One project I did in the 2e era was to compile a complete-as-I-could-make-it NWP list, so I studied up on this).

The 3.x skill system was far better.

That about summed it up, along with what others have said. NWP weren't bad in and of themselves, but it was clunky, and the game improved on skill systems ever since. They were a flat score based directly on your ability score, and improving them was difficult, you could only add a +1 every 3 or 4 levels. And in addition, proficiency checks were 1d20 roll low as opposed to roll high like hit rolls. Another problem is that they're vague compared to 3e skills. In 3e, there are some solid guidelines on required DCs, in 2e there was some degree of confusion as to what you can do with some NWPs. Do you have to make the check for everything, or does having the NWP let you competantly perform basic tasks?

NWP"s may have been officially optional in AD&D 2e, as in the core rules said they were optional and even presented an alternate system (anybody remember Secondary Skills?), but that was a technicality. They were optional rules pretty much everybody used, as opposed to say, weapon vs. armor type rules which were optional rules almost nobody used. When 3e came out it seemed to be an edition of D&D which reflected the game as we already played it, not requiring a change of style, instead the game was changing to reflect how it was really played.

Secondary Skills were simpler, but even more vague. I did see groups that used the two rules together, even though you weren't supposed to.

One big reason that I think everyone used NWPs even though they were optional is that they formed the backbone of kits, which were the backbone of the splats. They were required if you wanted to use kits, and in some cases like al-Qadim, kits themselves were required.

I didn't know of a single AD&D 2e-playing group back then that didn't use NWP's. In fact, most groups I knew either used the expanded Skills & Powers NWP system, or a homebrew skill system that was more comprehensive.

I went with S&P NWPs. They are a kludge, but they're also to some degree a prototype of 3e's skills, and I believe they introduced synergy bonuses. I had my own collected list of NWPs from my various 2e books, and had them converted to S&P use. Certainly if I were to run 2e again, I'd use the PO system.

 

[eyebeams]

In my opinion:

2e's NWP were poorly designed.
3e's skill system is less bad than 2e's NWP.
4e's skill system is less bad than 3e's.

I haven't seen a D&D skill system that I think is good, only "less bad" than what has come before.

Thanks to level dependent skills 3e needs commoners with levels to make better blacksmith than your cleric who dumps a few points in from time to time, and 4e needs the same ice to be twice more slippery for 20th level guys than 10th level guys.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Thanks to level dependent skills 3e needs commoners with levels to make better blacksmith than your cleric who dumps a few points in from time to time, and 4e needs the same ice to be twice more slippery for 20th level guys than 10th level guys.

Yeah, there's some wonky stuff in every D&D skill system. That's why I say that I haven't seen a good one. On the whole, though, the skill systems have become "less bad" over time.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Thanks to level dependent skills 3e needs commoners with levels to make better blacksmith than your cleric who dumps a few points in from time to time, and 4e needs the same ice to be twice more slippery for 20th level guys than 10th level guys.

One qualm with your point. 4E doesn't cover Blacksmithing as a skill. Adventurers excel at skills used by adventurers. Blacksmithing falls under an unsaid secondary skill that NPCs can be quite accomplished in, but that PCs can only try to mimic with DM adjudication and use of attribute checks. Plus, since NPCs don't have to follow the same rules as PCs, the DM can determine exactly how skilled he wishes a non-combatant blacksmith to be.

 

[Mallus]

Thanks to level dependent skills 3e needs commoners with levels to make better blacksmith than your cleric who dumps a few points in from time to time, and 4e needs the same ice to be twice more slippery for 20th level guys than 10th level guys.

re: 3e skills -- however, this leads to the wonky-but-wonderful corollary that every exceptionally talented person can function as an action hero. Insert picture of Yo Yo Ma firing two sideways 9mm's or Andy Warhol punching out a terrorist here. I recall wanting to run a D20 Modern campaign built around Einstein as a major NPC, where the iconic elderly, wild-haired Albert Einstein sometimes throws a surprisingly accurate right hook after being shot by a Nazi spy.

re: 4e skills -- a minor quibble... what 4e needs is the 10th level guys to be crossing a frozen lake during a blizzard and the 20th level guys to be crossing a cold Buddhist hell.

re: 2e -- the more I think about it, the more I like the (old) idea that low-level PCs (and level-less NPCs) can excel at non-adventuring skills sets.

 

[SkidAce]

When they NWP skills first came out we though they were great, and added flavor.

Even being based on your stat made sense, after all our stats didnt go up back then. So buying the NWP again to get better showed "training".

However, that is the viepoint of them as a NEW innovative system. Good stuff.

But with hindsight and the perspective of more evolved modern systems, they were functional at best.

Still, liked them at the time (even before skills and powers).

 

[AllisterH]

2e's "optional" NWP system was like 2e's Tome of Magic.

Technically, you didn't need it, but a LOT of other products assumed you did have access to it...

 

[wingsandsword]

I like the 3.x idea of commoners-with-levels for above-average skill levels.

Levels are how competent/experienced a character is overall. A high-level commoner is highly competent with what he does, even if it's not adventuring-related. A 7th level commoner could be a legendary farmer but only as useful in a fight as a 1st or 2nd level PC, a 5th level adept could be a master alchemist & expert sage even if he was only as useful in combat as a 2nd or 3rd level Cleric or Druid.

Now, a 1st level Commoner could be a passable journeyman in a trade with 4 ranks, a +1 or maybe even +2 from ability score, and a Skill Focus feat (and maybe another boosting feat if Human). +8 or +9 to a skill is piddly to mighty adventurers, but it can still do the everyday tasks of a profession just "Taking 10". A 3rd level commoner could even get a synergy bonus, a couple more ranks, and another feat which might be in something related and easily get over +10 and be easily able to masterwork items and could fairly be called a "master" of their trade. There is little need for even mid-level NPC classes to fairly depict even the overwhelming majority of NPC's.

The whole "0 level" concept never made sense to me, the idea that the only way to gain levels is in combat-related, adventuring-oriented styles of training (i.e. classes) and that a brand new PC who has never actually clashed swords with an orc or cast a spell in battle is more worldly (i.e. experienced/levelled) than a master alchemist or swordsmith who has been practicing for decades.

Secondary Skills, for a similar reason, also didn't make sense. If you didn't start with one (which were randomly rolled anyway), you couldn't learn it. You might have been an armorer or a fisherman or sailor before you began adventuring, but there was no learning any of that after that first dungeon crawl, even if you spend most of your later adventures after 1st level in a seaside fishing village based out of an old smithy.

 

[Orius]

Secondary Skills were largely supposed to be a background thing, this is what you trained in before you became an adventure, so it's the stuff you know how to do. If you retire from adventuring, it's the kind of life you retire into unless you become and stay fabulously wealthy.

 

[pemerton]

re: 3e skills -- however, this leads to the wonky-but-wonderful corollary that every exceptionally talented person can function as an action hero. Insert picture of Yo Yo Ma firing two sideways 9mm's or Andy Warhol punching out a terrorist here. I recall wanting to run a D20 Modern campaign built around Einstein as a major NPC, where the iconic elderly, wild-haired Albert Einstein sometimes throws a surprisingly accurate right hook after being shot by a Nazi spy.

Very good point that I've never thought about before!

Also, it requires one to post the obligatory link to Einstein vs ninjas.