* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Do you use skills / proficiencies ? Started at 05-31-05 02:56 AM by weasel fierce Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=438843 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-31-05 02:56 AM Thread Title : Do you use skills / proficiencies ? So, in OOP games, do you use skills and proficiencies ? Please include if you use a variant system, and what rules set you are using Personally, its AD&D1, and classic D&D, both without skills. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : havard Date : 05-31-05 08:02 AM So, in OOP games, do you use skills and proficiencies ? Please include if you use a variant system, and what rules set you are using Personally, its AD&D1, and classic D&D, both without skills. Good thread idea! For AD&D 2E we always used the non weapon proficiency rules. The background proficiencies, or whatever they were called never made sense to us, but I suppose they were intended for the 1E crowd. Unfortunately I never got a chance to try those rules. For BECMI/RC D&D, which is my favorite OOP version of D&D we used the General skill system pretty much from day 1. We played a few times before picking up Gaz1, but after that we always used the General Skill system, and I was very pleased when it was formalized into one system and one unified skill list. As mentioned elsewhere, I am currently leaning towards using a system involving level checks ala C&C, but perhaps in combination with skills. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-31-05 01:18 PM I must admit, out of the available systems, the BECM D&D one is the best. In my last campaign (AD&D1), we used the secondary skills (the profession like thigns) and winged it from there. Im working on an expanded list though (possibly borrowing a bit from the Warhammer RPG) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Thailfi Date : 05-31-05 02:39 PM We always used the secondary skills from the 1e DMs Guide. We picked up non-weapon proficiencies when they were introduced in the 1e books "Dungeoneers Survival Guide" and "Wilderness Survival Guide". We modified the rules in the mid 90s to update to the 2e system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-31-05 04:30 PM In 1e, no I don't. In OD&D, no I don't. In 2e sometimes we use secondary skills or Non-Weapon Proff. In 3e we have to use skills. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Elendur Date : 05-31-05 06:53 PM I loved the non-weapon proficiencies and martial arts in the 1e Oriental Adventures. I believe that was the first AD&D book that had them. Never used them in regular D&D though. It was always "My secondary profession is a tanner. Uh, great, let's go kill stuff. Then you can skin them." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Stonebeard Date : 05-31-05 08:10 PM I have never liked skill based games. I feel its too limiting, i want my players to and me when i'm a player to use their imaginations to solve problems not a skill roll. Even better is when we actually learn something. I recall an adventure once when the players were in a desperate fix, stuck in a desert setting they were dying from (if nothing else) life in the desert. A trip to the library to find a book on desert survival saved the day. Its experiences like this that i fondly remember of the "old" days. And the feel of the game I continue to strive for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-31-05 11:42 PM In 1e we sometimes used the secondary skills in the DMG, but usually not. In B/X I've never bothered with anything like secondary skills and would vehemently oppose anything like a true skill/proficiency system. It just changes the feel of the game too much....KISS and all that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : cerebus Date : 06-01-05 08:56 AM Since the days of the UA and WSG/DSG, I have used NWP/Skills in my game(s). I see them as definitions of what a character can do well, not a limit on what they can do. I never use them for simple, everyday tasks, but they are handy for the more difficult tasks an adventurer would come across. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 06-02-05 09:16 AM I use secondary skill sets, but instead of rolling randomly for them I allow the player to pick one. So no PC's end up with "no skill worth measuring," but no one ends up with two skill sets either. I have a memory from a campaign once where secondary skills were randomly determined. First roll: 97: Roll twice again, discounting rolls above 86 Second roll: 71: No skill worth measuring Third roll: 73: No skill worth measuring :banghead: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 06-14-05 04:32 AM Absolutely, we use the AD&D 2E NWP rules. I feel they help define what a character does well (as cerebus points out, above), and help players get more in touch with what their characters are about. Without them, PCs tend to become reflections of the players, rather than a role the player must play. And the characters tend to end up very similar. Also, they help define an NPC's strengths and weaknesses, which further clarify the character into something more than a cardboard cutout. NWPs help diversify the PCs and NPCs in the adventuring world. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-15-05 01:26 AM Since the days of the UA and WSG/DSG, I have used NWP/Skills in my game(s). I see them as definitions of what a character can do well, not a limit on what they can do. I never use them for simple, everyday tasks, but they are handy for the more difficult tasks an adventurer would come across. Pretty much how I feel about it myself. In 2nd Ed, we used NWPs more often than we used WPs. In 3.x I look for ways to simplify the skill system. One of my methods ended up in UA (not that I'm saying they stole it, as I'm quite aware of how often different people come up with similar/identical rule solutions). After reading a few reviews of C&C that went over the rules in detail, I'm considering taking up my "Basic D&D d20" project again using some of the concepts from C&C in conjunction with the d20 rules - mainly due to how C&C handles skill rolls as well as comments I read on using feats with the system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-15-05 11:35 PM In the old days, we used OAD&D NWPs as soon as they appeared & continued to use them when 2e came out. These days, however, I don't care to use NWPs or General Skills with classic D&D or AD&D. I am interested in seeing the LAish skill bundles for C&C in Castle Zagyg, though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : chatdemon Date : 06-16-05 06:54 AM I run RC Classic D&D, and use skills, but I'm a bit of a heretic... I use 3e's skill system, slightly modified. :dancin: PCs start with 4 (+1, 2 or 3 depending on their class, and another possible 1,2, or 3 depending on INT, also possibly losing 1,2 or 3 if they have a really low INT) points. A new skill costs 1 point. each rank costs a number of points equal to its rank. In other words, I buy Ride: Horse for 1 point, 2nd rank costs 2 points, 3rd rank costs 3 points, etc. At each level gain, the PC recieves 2 new skill points, which may be spent right away, or saved up for later skill increases. I also allow skill points to be bought, for 300xp/character level. In this way, players can customize exactly how their PC develops, as well as giving them a use for those "extra" XP that are sometimes lost at the end of an adventure if they've earned enough to invoke the "1 level at a time" rule. Also, if a PC spends an entire month of game time doing nothing but training, I allow an intelligence check to see if any new bonus skill points were earned. If so, they get 1d3 bonus points. My campaign is pretty fast paced though, so sitting idle for an entire month while the rest of the party is out adventuring is a serious setback. Even if the entire party opts for a month of training, the world keeps on turning, and enemies and rivals will make good use of that time. As in 3e, each skill retains its relevant ability, and gets a +1, 2 or 3 bonus (or penalty) depending on the ability score. Skill checks are made by rolling D20 and adding ranks and bonuses vs a difficulty number set by the DM. Feats are included, sort of. Feats are simply high point cost skills. Cleave, for example, costs 5 points (Great Cleave costs 10 and requires the PC be a fighter or dwarf of name level or better). If the PC qualifies to use the Cleave skill in combat (his attack on the primary target does enough damage to drop the foe), he can make a skill check. If it succeeds, he gets to roll a bonus attack on an adjacent foe. Unlike 3e, not all characters start out with literacy, in fact, only Magic-Users and Elves get that as a bonus skill. Thief skills, and skills that mimic them, are not included, I left the mechanics for thieving abilities alone, preferring the methods in the RC. I've been adding other skills to the list, mostly drawn from 2e and Hackmaster, since I feel 3e was too broad with some skills. Lastly, I handle untrained skill checks, when allowed at all (some skills, like Ride: Horse or Cleave, allow it, others, like Spellcraft, don't) quite simply. The Difficulty level of the check is doubled, and the PC recieves only base ability score bonus to the roll. A natural 20 roll on a skill check always succeeds, with outstanding results if the difficulty level was 19 or less, and dubious results if the DL was 21 greater. An untrained character attempting to ride a horse in some situation that invokes a check might manage to stay on the beast, but the horse wanders in an unwanted direction, for example. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 06-16-05 07:35 AM Nope. I sure don't. AD&D is based on the character as archetype and not skills. So I don't use them. If a player wants a secondary skill they can roll on the table in the Dungeon Master's Guide and should a situation for which it might apply arise, then perhaps a 1 in 3 or a 1 in 2 chance of success for whatever is being attempted will be assigned and diced for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Monteblanco Date : 07-09-05 03:04 PM I always liked NWP and I've used them in late 1st ed. AD&D, 2nd ed. AD&D, and the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, which is my favorite version of the game. I also used skills when I run a d20 3.0 D&D game, but I didn't found the rules as good as the old NWP. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Bullet-proof Monk Date : 07-09-05 04:03 PM I use both Weapon and Non-Weapon. And grant pre-class bonuses based off the background information offered by the player during character development. EX: PlayerX"My character comes from a very rural farming community. His grandfather was a farmer, his father was a farmer, and he was being raised to be a farmer aswell" I might assign playerX's character the following based on that information: Non-weapon: *Agriculture *Animal Handling(Horse) *Rope Use I might offer something further just for development purposes: To PlayerX"Unless you object. Your mother loved dancing and shes attempted to pass on that love to you. As such you have the Dancing proficiency okay?" I also allow for unused languages to be used as both Weapon and Non-Weapon slots. Due to the amount of time one needs to learn a new language..it seems fair to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : diaglo Date : 07-09-05 05:17 PM yes. always have always will. from OD&D (1974) on up i've used them. at first it was part of backstory for the PC. kinda like why pig farmer A becomes a hero. in 1edADnD they had secondary skills in the 1979 DMG Revised. and then played with them some more in the mid 80's in Dragon and then OA and the DSG/WSG and of course 2edADnD was laden with them and ... well the newer editions are full of stuff too. i'll let you guess what i mean by stuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : rigon Date : 07-09-05 05:20 PM During the 2e days, my group used weapon and nonweapon proficiences. I didn't think they limited my character in any way. I actually used my n/w proficiences to help develop my character better and to enhance the game. R- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Varl Date : 07-10-05 07:09 PM Yes. I use NWPs, and can't see myself ever going away from them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-04-05 10:31 PM Although I don't use general skills/NWP these days, I am very interested in the rumored skill system for C&C based on Lejendary Adventures that is to appear in Castle Zagyg. It should be easily adaptible to classic D&D & AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : avenger2003 Date : 08-10-05 01:44 PM My group and I use Non-Weapon proficiencies in our 2nd Edition Campaign. I find that it helps to sit down with each player and pick the proficiencies that best suit them and will actually be used in the campaign. Ex: Ever have the Gladiator kit and have the chance to use Charioteering? All in all, we've found that it makes the characters more...real (if that can be said about an RPG character) Although, we have agreed that a character can role-play most skills that they don't have (at additional prof. penalty), with the exception of proficiencies that may require special training. It also helps when players look for an opportunity to use their skills, not just when the DM prompts them. This shows that they're thinking "outside the book", and I don't mean rule-twisting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.