Spycraft 2.0 Skills

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Been reading through the Spycraft 2.0 book. There seems like a lot of things added that are meant to speed play -- I generally like the character creation changes. I'm a little iffy on how skills are implemented.

They do away with attribute checks, separate skill rank limits for cross-class skills, and individual language skills. Fine, the rules are streamlined some. They then replace the auto-succeed/fail on 20/1 with a threat/error mechanic that can have different meanings in different circumstances. They also move to aggregate skills that have different skill checks with circumstance-specific mechanics (some cannot have a critical failure, some are complex checks, etc.). Some of the aggregates aren't so well differentiated. For example, I can't remember which skill checks belong in Acrobatics vs. Athletics off the top of my head.

I haven't used it in actual play, but on the surface it seems like the skill system is more complex, not less. Am I the only one who has gotten this impression? I generally like the 2.0 changes, but the skills seem a little daunting.

 

[Denaes]

The skill section is intended to be more... "involved" I'd say.

Skills are such a large portion of espionage gaming, yet usually they're so flavourless and bland in d20 and most games. Roll, add/subtrack bonuses, compare to target number.

I think the Error/Threat is great because it adds flavour and lets people do exceptionally well with skills.

Some skills have gotten more involved like hacking. hacking is now a whole Dramatic Conflict. So the hackers have a sort of "hacking combat" to make up for the fact that they'll most likely suck in a physical combat.

The first few pages of skills I find usefull. Once they start going into a breakdown of every single skill and what types of rolls are most common and what their threat/crit is... thats where I put a postit note and write "Neat optional rules".

And thats what I see that section as. They're saying "to help you out, these are the most likely uses for the skills and most likely what is involved. Use this to extrapolate whatever else you need".

I'll use them as written and see how it works out.

 

[King of Old School]

Agreed with Denaes, the extra crunch in the skills section is something I'd likely handwave in actual play. It's really nice to have it but it's not absolutely necessary to use if it gets in your way.

KoOS

 

[AscentStudios]

We definately targetted the skill system at hard coding for the players and GCs out there that need it - with the full expectation that many veteran GCs would simply use the skills the way they want to Codifying the skills strictly into checks was important for a few reasons:

1) to make sure you could do everything you could do in 1st ed (where checks were scattered across 10-15 books).
2) to balance skills against each other so there are no "dump" skills, as there were in 1st edition (Use Rope, Listen or Innuendo, anyone?).
3) to give folks new to this edition an idea of exactly *what* they can do with a skill, and mechanics for how each activity works.
4) to create a clear, definitive reference for GCs and players in the Living Spycraft campaign to keep the campaign tidier and more satisfying for everyone.

The nice thing even for loosy-goosy GCs is that if you do run into a situation where you don't know how to mechanically resolve a check or situation, you now can flip to the skill section and find something that works, rather than having to think up something on the fly. We're hoping this - and all the other mechanical bits presented - helps make 2.0 a handbook for the "license to improvise" mentioned on the back cover

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

All right, that makes sense -- especially the argument about "dump" skills. Thanks for the replies!