This sentence sums up a good bit of 2nd edition. If you notice, a lot of rules are "optional" in 2nd edition, and I think thats my main gripe as I like to think that 3rd edition took all those "optional" rules and made it core mechanics. 2nd is still a fun edition despite the fact that I feel the main core books lack a lot of rules that 3rd edition main standard. I like to be follow concrete rules in a system (im not much for house rules) but I would still play 2nd edition without hesitation flaws and all, for nostalgia.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Views on 2nd ed. Non Weapon Proficiencies.
- Thread starter Dolgo
- Start date
This sentence sums up a good bit of 2nd edition. If you notice, a lot of rules are "optional" in 2nd edition, and I think thats my main gripe as I like to think that 3rd edition took all those "optional" rules and made it core mechanics. 2nd is still a fun edition despite the fact that I feel the main core books lack a lot of rules that 3rd edition main standard. I like to be follow concrete rules in a system (im not much for house rules) but I would still play 2nd edition without hesitation flaws and all, for nostalgia.
Celebrim
Legend
The only real problem with the NWP system was that it was implemented haphazardly. The basic concept is sound, and to me the 4e skill system is basically identical to a cleaned up NWP system.
The basic idea behind NWP is that you are either skilled or unskilled, and that your chance of success or failure doesn't depend much on level but on your ability score (and perhaps on a degree of specialization or focus). Early editions do this with static difficulties and 4e does this with ever increasing bonuses largely matched by the expectation of ever increasing target numbers (or difficulties), but its basically the same idea of 'fixed math'.
To me then, the merits of the NWP system are basically the same as the merits of 4e system - fixed math, ease of play, and high focus on character concept. To a certain extent, because the old system allows for increasing breadth of skill through the course of play (as opposed to just depth, which 3e tends to encourage) I like it better than the 4e system and see merits of it over the 3e system (though not enough to adopt it into my homebrew).
The problem with NWP's in practice is that some fit this core concept well, while others departed from it. One of my favorite NWP's was in fact a proto-feat that took some element of the game that D&D had never treated as a skill and gave you a bonus in it. Some NWP's were quite narrow and some quite broad. Others were just not that well thought out mechanically or had unique systems all to themselves. In this way, they were alot like the 2e concept of 'kits' - good basic idea but frequently very poor implementation.
But you could clean up the system as part of a general house cleaning of the older editions and by and large I think it would work as well as any skill system in any system.
The basic idea behind NWP is that you are either skilled or unskilled, and that your chance of success or failure doesn't depend much on level but on your ability score (and perhaps on a degree of specialization or focus). Early editions do this with static difficulties and 4e does this with ever increasing bonuses largely matched by the expectation of ever increasing target numbers (or difficulties), but its basically the same idea of 'fixed math'.
To me then, the merits of the NWP system are basically the same as the merits of 4e system - fixed math, ease of play, and high focus on character concept. To a certain extent, because the old system allows for increasing breadth of skill through the course of play (as opposed to just depth, which 3e tends to encourage) I like it better than the 4e system and see merits of it over the 3e system (though not enough to adopt it into my homebrew).
The problem with NWP's in practice is that some fit this core concept well, while others departed from it. One of my favorite NWP's was in fact a proto-feat that took some element of the game that D&D had never treated as a skill and gave you a bonus in it. Some NWP's were quite narrow and some quite broad. Others were just not that well thought out mechanically or had unique systems all to themselves. In this way, they were alot like the 2e concept of 'kits' - good basic idea but frequently very poor implementation.
But you could clean up the system as part of a general house cleaning of the older editions and by and large I think it would work as well as any skill system in any system.
I liked 2nd Eds System assuming they were used to show things the PCs did exceptionally well. There are several places where the game improperly or split its defeinition of a skill.
1) These are what your PCs do well. Other things they might be able to do but aren't experts at.
2) These are the things your PCs know how to do. If it isn't on the list your PC is no good at it.
It is a point they gloss over. But it should be if your PCs has the NWP then they usually don't need to make a check they just do it. (See languages) but if the task is really hard then they need to make the check whereas an untrained person couldn't do it at all.
Another good example is riding: riding a horse a PC trained can do, but untrained PCs will need to make checks and when combat happens will likely fall off or dismount. In combat the trained rider can fight from horseback but will need to make checks.
1) These are what your PCs do well. Other things they might be able to do but aren't experts at.
2) These are the things your PCs know how to do. If it isn't on the list your PC is no good at it.
It is a point they gloss over. But it should be if your PCs has the NWP then they usually don't need to make a check they just do it. (See languages) but if the task is really hard then they need to make the check whereas an untrained person couldn't do it at all.
Another good example is riding: riding a horse a PC trained can do, but untrained PCs will need to make checks and when combat happens will likely fall off or dismount. In combat the trained rider can fight from horseback but will need to make checks.
Similar Threads
