Castles & Crusades, The Crusader Magazine, Aihrde, and all other things SIEGE.
https://www.trolllord.com/forums/
Nothing formal. Players give me their back story (pre adult story) and I take it from there. For demi-humans they already get their secondary "skills" in the race descriptions. I give the humans something appropriate to their background.jdizzy001 wrote:A +1 bonus to a single skill. I always viewed it as a characters background. Meaning, they started training as x, hence the +1 bonus, but decided to go adventuring instead. Has anyone used these? What has been your experience?
Mathematically, +1 is 5%. So it is a 5% difference.jdizzy001 wrote:Does the +1 really make a difference? And this is instead of level correct? Because adding level means it is a "skill" granted by your class
Seriously, you could give as much as a +3 for a secondary skill and it shouldn't effect how the game works.A difference in what? How well the PC attached the shoe to the horse?jdizzy001 wrote:Does the +1 really make a difference?
jdizzy001 wrote:I suppose I'm fine with the +1. It makes me think that the pc once had a plan to do something else with their life but after beginning training they changed their mind. I guess i was expecting a larger number of skills. Then again there is nothing stopping me from awarding 2 or more secondary skills.
Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."Treebore wrote: Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.
You can obviously interpret it that way if you wish. Personally, I prefer to take the full context of that paragraph, as well as the following paragraph, along with the boxed text, to be poorly worded and apply ONLY to when a PC tries to use a non class ability that is another classes ability. Since those are the only examples brought up in any of those paragraphs, and is the precise situation that whole section opens up with.Arduin wrote:Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."Treebore wrote: Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.
I just take it how it was written. I don't interpret it as it is in my native tongue.Treebore wrote:You can obviously interpret it that way if you wish.Arduin wrote:Actually, the rule is the GM gets to decide what PC can try (if a class skill NOT on it list). The rules guidence is that the CK should NOT allow ANY chance of success. "In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability."Treebore wrote: Regardless, they can attempt to do anything. Just in the case of Class Skills, they don't add level unless its their class to begin with.
That in general the CK should disallow. There is nothing else in the paragraph that reverses that. It doesn't advise to do both. Not in the printing I have. Your printing may have different wording.Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.Aergraith wrote:"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".
Arduin wrote:Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.Aergraith wrote:"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".
Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).Treebore wrote:The 6th printing does make it a little clearer, since it starts off the second paragraph with, "If a CK, for whatever reason, does allow a character to use the class ability of another class, then..."
Yup, that's what the guidance is to CK's. (2nd sentence)Fizz wrote:
Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).
At least that's how i take it.
-Fizz
When it is a Class Skill, yes, that is how you are welcome to "take it". My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level. So when the locks are a low CL, anyone has a decent chance to pick them, and as the locks get more difficult, any chance to pick them disappears for anyone without Picking Locks as a Class skill.Fizz wrote:Arduin wrote:Correct. Usually not, as opposed to Usually allow". Which is how I too take it.Aergraith wrote:"In general" of course, can be read as "usually".Combining these, i think "in general" refers to the situation. If a fighter tries to pick a lock, he's not allowed- he has no clue how to do it. Now, if that fighter was being told how to do it by his partner rogue who is tied up, then i'd allow the fighter a chance (no level addition of course).Treebore wrote:The 6th printing does make it a little clearer, since it starts off the second paragraph with, "If a CK, for whatever reason, does allow a character to use the class ability of another class, then..."
At least that's how i take it.
-Fizz
I agree entirely. When i said "that's how i take it", i was referring to how i read the official rule. For me personally, i err on the side of letting the user attempt anything. Very rarely will i say "no" outright- usually for skills that would require specific training.My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level.
Even the rule book says when the CK thinks something is impossible a roll isn't to be made.Fizz wrote:I agree entirely. When i said "that's how i take it", i was referring to how i read the official rule. For me personally, i err on the side of letting the user attempt anything. Very rarely will i say "no" outright- usually for skills that would require specific training.My point is, this does not apply to every skill possible, only those that belong to a Class. Personally, I see no reason why anyone cannot try to pick a lock, so allow anyone to do so. I just do not allow them to add their level.
But at what point does someone attempt the impossible? Is a 20 always automatic success no matter the difficulty? What separates the very difficult from the impossible?
For example, should a clumsy 1st level fighter have a 5% chance of picking the most elaborate, complex, technologically-advanced lock ever devised? I'm not sure...
Note, i'm not judging here- just playing devil's advocate.
-Fizz
Captain_K wrote:To the original question, I think, my PCs like to have a written back story complete with "skills" and things they think they should know how to do based on "growing up". Read and write, swim, ride horses, milk and care for cows, etc.
Siege checks of you can do anything is great, but certain things that is not logical. If I'm a 20th lvl fighter, reading Latin without formal training is pretty darn unlikely, but easy with a bit of training, back story and write up.
Thus we write onto the PC listing "skills" (3d2 + highest modifier) that are definable and outside of classes to simply help with the you should know what your doing in this area at some beginners level or you have never experienced X, Y or Z and can try but don't expect a ballet to be performed on the dance floor at the king's ball by the barbarian.
The short list helps the PCs focus and the CK to come up with a reasonable challenge to the siege check.
I give them no bonus other than basic competency and no big negative and the above noted -6 is a good "you don't know what's you're doing" much like prime vs non-prime.
I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.Treebore wrote:Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.
Hence the game designers advice to CK's to NOT allow a change of success, as a general rule.Fizz wrote: On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20.
We have to remember that the Challenge Class of a thing is equal to its Challenge Base (12/18) plus its Challenge Level. I would allow a fighter to try to pick the lock. However, even a simple lock's Challenge Level is larger if an untrained character tries to pick it. For example:Fizz wrote:I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.Treebore wrote:Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.
For example, using our lock picking example, would you let an untrained fighter attempt to pick the most masterfully designed lock ever conceived? And if so does a required roll of 20 (5% chance) make sense?
On one hand, what is physically preventing the character from using some picks and poking around the lock? There is nothing physically preventing him from trying. But comparitively, nothing physically prevents him from walking up to a mountain and pushing it either. Just because you can physically try doesn't mean there should be a chance of success.
On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20. So does this qualify as "impossible" for the untrained, or "possible" because the odds aren't strictly 0?
It's these non-obvious situations where people differ in their approach, i think.
-Fizz
Fizz wrote:I agree. No one should be able to lift a mountain, for example. But there is that fuzzy area between the impossible and the highly unlikely.Treebore wrote:Yep. Common sense does need to be used, thats for sure. But if its something that is "reasonable" for them to at least have an idea as to how to do, I give them a roll, even if its not written into their characters background. Impossible is impossible, but when its possible, it gets a roll.
For example, using our lock picking example, would you let an untrained fighter attempt to pick the most masterfully designed lock ever conceived? And if so does a required roll of 20 (5% chance) make sense?
On one hand, what is physically preventing the character from using some picks and poking around the lock? There is nothing physically preventing him from trying. But comparitively, nothing physically prevents him from walking up to a mountain and pushing it either. Just because you can physically try doesn't mean there should be a chance of success.
On the other hand, one could argue that lock picking is a specialized skill. That unless you know for what you're feeling and understand the inner workings of a lock, it's purely a guessing game. In which case, the odds of manipulating the correct mechanical pieces in the right way would be far less than the 5% chance of rolling a 20. So does this qualify as "impossible" for the untrained, or "possible" because the odds aren't strictly 0?
It's these non-obvious situations where people differ in their approach, i think.
-Fizz
I prefer this:jdizzy001 wrote:A +1 bonus to a single skill. I always viewed it as a characters background. Meaning, they started training as x, hence the +1 bonus, but decided to go adventuring instead. Has anyone used these? What has been your experience?
For the full conversion, see: This Linkserleran in another thread wrote: Backgrounds – All characters in The Arcanum come from somewhere, being a person within the world before taking to the adventuring life, or perhaps, had it thrust upon them. This background will provide an idea about what and who the character knows for a deeper sense of verisimilitude. Contacts are simply NPCs that character has a minor friendship with, but not someone that can be abused; as there are usually several options listed, the Castle Keeper should determine a number based on a 1d4+1 roll, further modified by the character’s Charisma modifier. Lastly, a background also grants a few skills (this will be covered later) or a choice of skills befitting that lifestyle. These backgrounds are not intended to be complete, only act as a springboard of possibilities. If the Castle Keeper wants to add more skill selections, that is more than acceptable.
Outcast: A character of this type was, or still is, associated with the lowliest of society such as beggars and criminals, perhaps even enemies of the state, slaves, slavers, or the like.
Contacts – black market merchant, thief, assassin, fence, corrupt petty official, city guard, cultist, etc
Skills – Choice of two from streetwise, street fighting, thieves’ cant, gambling, or drinking
Barbarian: The character lived or was a member of a barbaric tribe or clan, being somewhat primitive and uncultured. If desired, the Castle Keeper can modify available skills to reflect the specific terrain type of the character’s homeland.
Contacts – tribal member, barbarian, shaman, druid, scout, merchant trader, trapper, hunter, etc
Skills – Choice of two from woodcraft, hunting/fishing/trapping, barter, swimming, sign language, or riding
Villager: This background implies the character developed in a small village, one not so isolated as to be self-contained necessarily, but one that was likely self-sufficient; the type of village, as far as the major imports and exports, may modify the skills available through the background, but such would need to be approved by the Castle Keeper.
Contacts – local lord (if applicable), knight, local villager, peddler, merchant, tradesman, craftsman, etc
Skills – Choice of two from haggle, language, basic seamanship, barter, swimming, riding, and trade skill
City Dweller: The character hails from a large urban environment, and has been exposed to many things but may therefore also be biased toward, or against, it. The type of city, such as capitol or sea port will need to be decided by the Castle Keeper, and this choice may modify the other aspects of the background, notably contacts.
Contacts – any character class, guild member, merchant, minor noble, pirate, streetwalker, etc
Skills – Choice of two from haggle, streetwise, drinking, gambling, reading/writing, trade skill and additional language
Aristocrat: A character with this background is a form of noble and likely expects to be treated as superior to “lower men.” They always begin with an additional +40% wealth and can read/write any known spoken language. However, such a character cannot start play having the streetwise, street fighting, or any wood lore (except, perhaps, hunting) skill.
Contacts – aristocrat, clergy, artisan, political figure, well-known bard, etc; they should have few, if any, contacts with those of low standing
Skills – Choose two from diplomacy, additional language, weapon training, art or music