|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 9, 2014 17:06:47 GMT -5
First, I should probably say that I'm not proposing specific rules yet; I'm thinking my way through something, so if you don't like my initial thought process on it, it's okay -- that's what brainstorming is all about! No, I think "talents" should still require a skill check (after all, anyone can try to sweet-talk someone into doing something, but if they have charisma or sex appeal or whatever, they get a bonus on the effort). To me, talents would be things that are more like second nature to the character using them, as opposed to learned skills. Sure, someone else could "learn" the talent, but would almost always be less efficient at it than someone to whom it comes naturally. Maybe that's really the answer: everything is still a "skill" but when you're creating your character you can select one, or perhaps two skills as "talents" and you will always receive a bonus of some kind (equivalent, possibly, to an extra "skill level"?) when using that skill. You can still "go to school" to learn the skill of the same name, but since you have a natural talent for it, you will always be that much better at it than a "normal" person is. It could literally apply to ANY skill that way -- for example, if you have a "talent" for tracking, you'll notice the little extra sign that another tracker, equally as well trained as you are in the formal "skill" would miss -- simply because to you, all of this comes naturally. (Just to clarify, btw, I propose one or two "talents" for player characters because they are supposed to be heroes -- a cut above the ordinary. Otherwise they'd just stay at home in their village and herd goats or whatever like most people do.) Edited to add: I crossed messages with nukesnipe, but obviously we were both thinking the same way about "talents" versus "skills."
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 9, 2014 17:50:21 GMT -5
Semantically and philosophically, what you (jlv) and nukesnipe describe is also how I think of "talent". I don't favor handling it as a bonus but I'm not opposed to it either. I would handle it like the Advantage of D&D Next. If a player is talented in Tracking, they can roll twice and use the most favorable roll.
If I wanted to balance Talents (or Advantages) with Ineptitude (or Disadvantages), and I think I would, for every Talent a character took, he would also have to take an Ineptitude. Roll twice and use the least favorable roll.
I prefer to let my custom Fatigue rules and Reactions give the characters their Heroic power.
Edited to add: Losing 2 points of Skills or 1 point of Attributes (ST, DX, IQ) would also be good options for balancing out the Talent.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 9, 2014 23:58:35 GMT -5
If that's the way that works best for you, I fully support that. I've never even seen "D&D Next" so I can't address how they do things there. Personally, I'll probably run it more along the lines of what we talked about above, but that's because that works better for me personally. At least until George, Bret, et al come out with something more definitive in a "LAW Advanced" version! I've never really been a huge fan of the offsetting penalties theory of advantages balanced with disadvantages, simply because all they really seem to do (to me) is attempt to artificially impose "Role Playing" on the players. I've always felt that proper role-playing was the player's job, and something they should actually try to do as opposed to something that needed to be mandated by the rules in some way; otherwise, why would they be playing an RPG anyway? As long as you make sure the one or two advantages you give each player doesn't completely imbalance the game ("I have a 'Wish Talent' and get a free Wish every other game turn!"), you shouldn't need to come up with something that forces the player into some kind of box to offset it. An extra skill level for some skill based on your personal aptitudes seems about right to me, for example. You still have a chance to fail, and it's not such a huge advantage that everything always comes out your way. Of course I still play with automatic successes and automatic failures on the dice rolls too.... But that's just me. Maybe I'm just too "old skool" in my approach.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 0:03:19 GMT -5
I'm not into "Role Playing" so I don't know what that has to do with anything. I just don't want to let characters start off being overly powerful. As long as there are no weapon talents (sword, axe, etc.), I would let starting characters have one Talent for free. This could solve a problem that some people have with skills and attributes that are not efficiently aligned. For instance, a ranger type character with ST12 DX12 IQ8 and Tracking(skill)+2. This guy would always be less likely to successfully track than a ST8 DX10 IQ14 wizard. Give that ranger-type character the Tracking Talent (handled my way) and he is probably a little better at tracking than the high IQ wizard.
Thanks for having this discussion with me. It has given me new ideas about handling some things.
Dual-Wielding Talent A character with this talent may roll twice for his attack and use the most favorable roll when he is wielding two weapons. The character only gets one attack as normal but increases his chances of landing a blow.
Toughness Talent A character with this talent negates one point of damage(perhaps fatigue also) from each successful attack against him. (good for the hobbitses and the Veteran/Warrior ITL talent lovers)
Those are some new ideas you've inspired in me. Thanks for opening my mind to this Talent stuff!
Edited to add: Actually, (handling my way) the ranger-type character still isn't as good as the wizard (75% vs. 90% chance of success; assisted check situation), but that roll twice method improved his chances from 50% to 70%. I meant to bring this up earlier: I dislike the method where a Talent adds a 1 or 2 point bonus to the skill because all you're really doing is just giving them 1 or 2 extra points of skill. If one wants to do that, just do it. No need to create some new character attribute gizmo.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 11, 2014 1:31:45 GMT -5
You know, that's a pretty important point (with regard to the lower IQ Ranger and the higher IQ Wizard) that I hadn't actually got around to thinking my way through yet.
I'm wondering if some sort of application of the "skill level 0" concept that someone else mentioned earlier (or maybe it was you, I forget now) might not be a good way to offset this kind of thing? Or maybe certain skills are an absolute requirement in order to even attempt a roll, and things like the weapons skills and tracking (and possibly physicker and a few others) might fit into that category.... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
I'd agree that weapons proficiencies probably shouldn't be among the selectable "talents" regardless though. Anyone can pick up a sword, but against anyone with even a tiny bit of training, they'll be toast in pretty short order -- unless they get incredibly lucky.... In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if a more generic set of talents might be more appropriate; things like "toughness" and maybe "agile" (boosts DX rolls in some minor way somehow) and "quick witted" might be the kinds of things we should be talking about. I suppose you could add some talents to reflect the other "characteristic rolls" of D&D -- like Charisma, and yes, I suppose the dreaded "Sex Appeal" too, but only a few would translate that way -- the rest would all remain skills.
Again, I think I'm just fumbling around the edges of something here that could really work amazingly well if we can get it figured out....
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Apr 11, 2014 1:51:03 GMT -5
Hey, guys,
This is more or less directly related to your discussion, and I'd like to get your thoughts.
One of the biggest problems in LAW, as alluded to above with the specific example of the ranger vs. high IQ character, is the IQ check. This comes up in each of our adventures, mainly through searches. This is a very common option in every adventure, searching the immediate local for clues or treasure. In that situation, a trained thief, say IQ11, is still at a disadvantage of the IQ13 wizard in finding the secret door.
So lets say there was a "talent" (for lack of a better word, as well as tying it into this discussion) called Search or Perception. And this Talent allows you to subtract 1d6 from the Check. You roll 2d6 against your IQ rather than 3d6. Now the 9IQ dude who is a thief by trade can compete with the wizard in terms of perception for the specific action of Searching.
Likewise, perhaps the ranger who had the Search Talent would be able to roll 2d6 rather than 3d6 for his Tracking Check - making him more compatible with the high IQ wizard in this case, which is logical...
OK, hopefully this is not too much of a tangent, be interested in your feedback...
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 9:21:57 GMT -5
That's an interesting puzzle, Bret. It's complex because there are a number of different 'searches'. Detect Traps, Tracking, Searching (general, as in looting), and Survival come to mind. I have about 3 different approaches birthing in my mind but it may be a day or two before I can sift through them.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 11, 2014 10:56:15 GMT -5
Given the average roll of a d6 is 3.5, taking a d6 away is equivalent to providing the character with a +3.5 die roll modifier. I'm not disagreeing with the idea, but there might be a need for an automatic failure mechanism, otherwise once a character's IQ reaches 12 they will never miss a roll.
Instead of rewarding a character for having a talent/skill, perhaps they should be penalized - significantly - for trying a task for which they are unskilled, say adding one or two d6 to the roll. That way, one could try to pick a lock or disarm a trap in a pinch, but if they lack the skill it will most likely blow up in their face.
Another thought regarding skills, if they become too narrowly focused they will be difficult to play.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 11:27:33 GMT -5
I agree with nukesnipe about taking a d6 away. However, a -4 IQ or 4/IQ penalty for Searching seems strange to me. A 'Searching' skill seems strange to me also. I also agree on automatic success and failure rolls. I've always assumed that every one counts an 18 as automatic failure and 3 as automatic success. Oops, I see that I misunderstood that. I still agree though.
Approach #1 ----------- What is the real problem?
Warriors have to carefully spread their attribute points around. To be effective fighters, they need decent DX to hit but they also need decent ST to deal meaningful damage. This leaves them with little to spare for IQ. Meanwhile, the wizard is completely focused on IQ. IQ affects what he can learn and his chances of successfully using what he's learned. IQ is the ST and DX of wizardly combat.
Perhaps the problem is that wizards are too motivated to double-down on IQ. I suspect this is why Steve Jackson used DX for casting spells. What if Sorcerer's Tongue became more like a weapon skill? Wizard's IQ + Sorcerer's Tongue skill determines his spell level. What if casting spells were an IQ + Sorcerer's Tongue skill check? The wizard would be less likely to have an extremely high IQ.
Approach #2 ----------- Create a Perception Talent, Skill, or Attribute. This talent/skill would affect multiple skills if carried to logical conclusions. Searching (for loot), Tracking, Detect Traps, and Survival are all forms of search that currently use IQ for a perception check of sorts. There might be other skills that could logically use Perception. I'm afraid this approach would steal too much of IQ's thunder but I haven't (and can't atm) take stock of how many skills use ST, how many use DX, how many would use Perception, and how many would be left based on IQ. Adding perception as an attribute will require some very careful re-writing of character creation rules. Implementation as a Talent seems best with this approach but seems kind of silly unless at least a handful of other Talents are brought into being to justify the creation of this new type of character enhancement.
Approach #3 ----------- Redefine/Rename some existing skills so that something like Thief skill becomes the 'Looting' skill and can be applied to general searches. I can't see how this approach would be worth 're-designing' effort. High IQ still wins.
It's probably obvious that I favor Approach #1 or some tweaked variation of it. Maybe Sorcerer's Tongue alone should determine spell level. It won't make warriors more powerful in the realm of IQ skills but it would allow the creation of decent wizards that aren't IQ over-achievers. Some players would still focus their wizards on IQ, but I think most would take advantage of the opportunity to spend an extra point or two in ST and/or DX.
Edit: Actually, I would love to see some variation of all three approaches implemented.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 15:06:45 GMT -5
You know, that's a pretty important point (with regard to the lower IQ Ranger and the higher IQ Wizard) that I hadn't actually got around to thinking my way through yet. I'm wondering if some sort of application of the "skill level 0" concept that someone else mentioned earlier (or maybe it was you, I forget now) might not be a good way to offset this kind of thing? Or maybe certain skills are an absolute requirement in order to even attempt a roll, and things like the weapons skills and tracking (and possibly physicker and a few others) might fit into that category.... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I'm not sure how I feel about the "skill level 0" concept. It sounds logical and reasonable from a player perspective. It would be perfect if there were only one type of skill check - Assisted...but I like having the Required skill checks also. I have no great feelings or ideas about this. All I can say is that I prefer the extra die method instead of a hard negative number penalty for implementing 'skill level 0'. Also, that it should apply to ALL skills, especially weapons.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 11, 2014 15:16:47 GMT -5
Bret: I like the idea of a "perception skill or talent, but I think a -1D6 adjustment on the roll is pretty extreme. Instead, I could see the "Perception skill" increasing your IQ by +1 (adjIQ) per skill level for that purpose only, which would tend to equalize the situation between our high IQ Wizard and our lower IQ ranger. If we then combined that with some sort of "skill level 0" penalty for someone that isn't particularly well-trained to observe things, I think your Wizard would cease to have such an inherent advantage.
Platimus' ideas (especially some combination of 1 and 2) would work as well, if I'm understanding where he's going with them. And I agree wholeheartedly with him that the automatic success and failure dice results are an absolute must in these situations too -- in fact, while I can see why you guys went away from double and triple damage on those, I think they are a good idea in general; we can all quote anecdotal examples of some person who should never have been able to do something getting incredibly lucky and pulling it off from time to time. (To say nothing of the other way around.)
I support the idea, but I don't want it to be too powerful an adjustment -- things should be more gradual in my opinion and give the players the opportunity to decide if Tracking 2 (or Perception 2) is more important than Sword 2 for their particular character. If it's too powerful, then only an idiot would fail to take it, and then it would skew the entire game.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 15:58:52 GMT -5
If I understand this correctly, the Perception thing-a-majig would double your skill wherever it is applied. I would not have a problem playing that at your table...but I still prefer my roll twice method! Edited: Nevermind. I totally misunderstood that quote until after I hit Submit.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 16:11:03 GMT -5
Another thought on the wizard being the King of Search with his high IQ: It's not really just the wizard that's searching. It's a collective effort. Instead of every character rolling 3/IQ, you're just cutting it down to one roll for the entire party.
It's not like the rest of the party says, "Hey, Mr. Wizard! Search this room while we take a smoke break!"
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 22:08:02 GMT -5
Search in the general sense really is a group effort. I can't think of any other activity in the game that is such a group effort. You spread out and look around. I imagine if you were hunting/foraging (Survival) there might be a group effort but even that activity would have a 'group leader' or 'group director' of sorts. Are there any rules for any other type of collective effort? Maybe some rules for the entire party working together to lift something?
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 11, 2014 22:54:03 GMT -5
We have Assisted and Required checks. Maybe there should be a third type of check. For lack of a better name, let's call it a 'Target Check'. Instead of 3/IQ or some other attribute, 3 dice are rolled against a target number, TN. Assisting skills can be added to the TN. Let's say the search test determines whether or not we find a secret door and the secret door isn't too difficult to find. The adventure could notate this test as: 3/10 + Mason. A general search of a room with a cleverly concealed stash of loot might be "3/8 + Thief"
|
|