My Shoe is Safe
-
Yesterday's quiz was a toughie. In it, to recap, commenters were encouraged
to guess at what the following pieces of art, generated by Substack's own
AI ...
1 day ago
Albrecht Dürer - Cupid the Honey Thief. 1514 |
via: Pinterest |
via Pinterest |
Unmodified skill checks do place caps on abilities. DEX of 18 = 90%, and on the low end, 9 = 45%.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
|
Labels:
Ability Scores,
Mechanic Series,
NPC's,
pc classes,
Proficiencies
|
9 comments:
Are you suggesting that the skills usually reserved to the theifclass, simply gets thrown into the pool of NWP, add a dex-check and you can spec out the other classes however they want with the theif-skills?
Do you have a firm system if, say, a warrior wants to hide, but depending on armor there are modifiers, or do you make these up in a case by case judgement?
Would you judge some abilities costlier than others? How would you work in backstab if at all?
Just to clarify, I really like this idea, and I might roll with this in my next campaign to mix things up!
I also read a blog-post where someone removed the priest-class. It made gods, blessings and miracles a lot more special and divine and it added emphasis on alternative way of surviving and staying alive without a steady supply of healing-spells. That was the argument at least. Would you prefer a completely classless system?
Low Fantasy Gaming rpg uses this approach for static things like locks and traps, and opposed rolls vs active things like stealth vs detection
Fighters, Magic Users, and Thieves all interact with the world in different ways. I do my best to preserve this balance. Not all closed systems are bad, we need them to support the game.
We can redefine what a magic user is in our world, and change it. We can make the use of magic illegal, or harder to use, but it is still there.
I maintain this system. If a fighter wants to be proficient in Hiding In Shadows, he'll have to pay double for the slot, or, if we make it a benefit of a sub-class, a different XP chart is used.
Gnomes and Halflings are supposed to have the ability to slip away, or go unnoticed, however the mechanics don't reflect that. Depending on how we define a race, this can be given to them for free.
One can always attempt to simulate a NWP if the conditions are right, and/or a decent plan is hatched. If a fighter runs into a dark room and hides behind a stack of barrels, he is hiding. On the other end of the spectrum, if a master thief runs into a well-lit room that is empty and offers no places to hide, they can't just roll Hide in Shadows and disappear, that isn't how it works. The physics of this skill has to be defined on a case by case basis.
Can a fighter attempt to hide? Always! Can he sit there in some uncomfortable stance for long periods of time? Maybe. Can he do this as well or as easily as a trained thief? No.
If you don't think that this skill fits your world, ditch it. The Hide in Shadow skill may be irrelevant now. Or we can use it to just judge if the skill allows one to spot the best place to hide. If the player spent a slot on it, it should do something.
In regards to Backstab, the thief was totally stripped in Masque of the Red Death, but you are right, and caught a hole in the system. A fighter who paid for backstab would be way too powerful. I think that this should be a class ability. It's not a very good one, as it exposes him to an attack, and conditions have to be perfect for it to work, but it is what it is. That is still a very powerful attack.
Welcome Steve Grod, thanks for chiming in :) That is a beautifully stated mechanic. Much better than the wall of text that it takes me to describe my thoughts.
Yes, everyone, regardless of skill, class and situation can always ATTEMPT anything. I feel your point (in a lot of your posts) is that you criticize the notion that only if you have the skill on your sheet, you can do it - or rather, that is how its often played.
In actuality, everyone can try and do anything, but some are better trained and skilled in some things and have better odds. The trick comes from figuring out what that training allows you to accomplish compared to one that is untrained. Some things are simply impossible (like casting magic as a fighter), but handycraft and physical movement should be possible for everyone, only at different levels of success.
By changing thief-skills into NWP, it seems the skills are changed into something more static, and not something you can nessaserily get better at as such (like distributing new thief-points) but they function more innately and have a higher chance of success from the get-go. Am I understand the implications correctly?
I've been trying not to poke you all week waiting for this post, haha. I've got to check out the Masque of the Red Death campaign setting now. I went through Skills & Powers but didn't see the section you mention--do you happen to have a page number handy?
As I've been thinking on this, I keep coming back to the idea of replacing the Thief with the Expert, so this Tradesman class sounds intriguing. I think I may disagree with you on the NWP slots staying the same thing, but I'll have to look more closely at the numbers. I wouldn't want to overdo it, but my thinking is that this is a good opportunity to broaden the Thief (or Thief analogue)'s role in the party. Since I'll be doing Method I character creation and hexcrawl exploration, the ability to make a thief that can pick up some slack from the rarity of rangers might be a good idea.
The only problem I see with this system is that getting those 30 points at level up is so dang fun. Just the feel of it really stands out compared to leveling up in the other classes.
Yeah, Martin. It sounds really weird, and I resisted it, but it has worked well at the table.
It may not be in that book, I write from memory, and mine isn't all that accurate.
Post a Comment